Sri.Manmohan.P.N, learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri.N.Thejesh Rao, learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.K.S.Ramesh for respondent No.3 have appeared

through video conferencing.

Sri.Shivananda.D.S., learned Additional Government

Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 has appeared in person.

The facts are simply stated as under:-

The

property

bearing

Sy.No.60/P5

of

Doddakirugumbi Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura

Taluk, measuring 4 Acres 24 Guntas was granted in favor

of one Sri.Narasimhappa vide order No.LND:CB:456/72-73

on 20.10.1973. The Grant Certificate was issued on

29.05.1978. The Certificate is clear that the land was

granted for price of Rs.485/- and the same was deposited

in the Treasury.

It is stated that Narasimhappa and his family

members have sold the granted land in favour of one

4

Smt.G.K.Sujatha - the fourth respondent on 16.07.1995.

The sale deed was executed after the expiry period

specified

in

non-alienation

clause-7

of

the

Grant

Certificate. The revenue records were changed in favour of

Smt.G.K.Sujatha in M.R.No.9/95-96.

It is said that Smt.G.K.Sujatha and her husband

K.Lakshimipathi Reddy have sold the said property along

with another property in favour of one - P.Shankara Babu -

the fifth respondent on 28.10.1999. Pursuant thereto,

revenue entries were changed in the name of P.Shankara

Babu.

As things stood thus one N.Paramesh, Son of

Narasimhappa (the third respondent) filed a petition under

Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste &

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer on Certain Lands)

Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') in PTCL No.29/2006-07

before

the

Assistant

Commissioner,

Chikkaballapura

Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura, to initiate action under the

PTCL Act, for resumption of the land and to restore the

5

same to him. The grounds urged by him was that the land

in question was in unauthorized occupation of his father

and in view of the same, the said land was granted to his

father with the non-alienation clause of 15 years and the

same

was

sold

by

his

father

in

favour

of

one

Smt.G.K.Sujatha which violates provisions of PTCL Act.

It is also stated that on 07.05.2006, Paramesh filed

a memo before the Assistant Commissioner to permit him

to withdraw the petition on the ground that the land was

sold after non- alienation period. On the basis of the said

memo, the Assistant Commissioner has given a clear

finding that there are no records to show as to whether the

land granted is for the price or auction or etc., The

statement of Paramesh was noted and disposed of the

petition.

It is said that P.Shankara Babu and his children sold

the said property along with other properties in favour of

the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated

20.09.2007. The petitioner's vendor have not disclosed

6

about the aforesaid proceedings. The copy of the Grant

Certificate was furnished. There is no indication in the

Grant Certificate that the land is granted in favour of the

person belongs to Scheduled Caste. The only restriction

imposed in the Certificate is non-alienation for a period of

15 years. The first sale is after the expiry of 15 years.

There were no encumbrances or any entries in any of the

revenue records. In view of the same, the petitioner

purchased the property in question under a registered sale

deed for valuable consideration. The third respondent

handed over the possession of the property in favour of

Smt.G.K.Sujatha and she continued to be in possession

and later the successors in title and now the petitioner is in

possession and enjoyment of the property. The Mutation

has also been effected in the name of the petitioner.

It is averred that after the purchase of the property

by the petitioner, the third respondent filed a petition

under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in PTCL (Chicka)

No.221/2007-08. It is said that the petition is almost a

7

replica of petition filed by his son except making certain

corrections. Therefore