The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated

20.03.2009, passed by the respondent No.3 in Dispute

No.PTCL 1/2002-03, as per Annexure-D and order

dated 28.09.2010, passed by the respondent No.2 in

Dispute No.PTCL 8/2009, as per Annexure-E, have

filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ

petition are as under:

Land in Sy.No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was

granted on temporary lease in favour of father of

respondent No.4 under the "Grow More Foods

Scheme" on 18.02.1946 and temporary 'saguvali chit'

was issued. The father of respondent No.4 was

continuously in possession of the land till it was

granted at upset price of Rs.200/- per acre. The

4

Deputy Commissioner exercising powers under Rule

43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules,

1960 ('the Rules' for short) granted the said land. In

the said grant order, no conditions are imposed

regarding non-alienation of granted land. The

respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act alleging that the sale transactions are in

violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Therefore,

respondent No.3 allowed the application filed by

respondent

No.4

and

declared

that

the

sale

transactions were hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act

and issued a direction to the Tahsildar, Maddur to

restore the land in question in favour of respondent

No.4. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed

by respondent No.3, filed an appeal before respondent

No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed

by the petitioners vide order dated 28.09.2010.

Hence this writ petition.

5

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.2

and 3 suffers from material irregularity. He further

submits that Rule 43-J of the Rules is not applicable to

the present case in hand. He further submits that the

respondents No.2 and 3 without looking into the

records, have passed the impugned order. It is

further submitted that the land in question was got

regularized by the father of respondent No.4 during

undisputed time. He further submits that the

respondents No.2 and 3 have failed to note that grant

was made under the provisions of Rule 43-J of the

Rules and for the grants made under the said Rule,

the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable. He

further submits that the father of the respondent No.4

has deposited the upset price of the value of the land

6

and for such grants, condition for non-alienation could

not have been prescribed. Hence, the condition of

non-alienation for a period of 15 years from the date

of grant has to be ignored. In order to buttress his

arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.

N. BABUREDDY & ANR. VS. SMT. VENKATAMMA & ORS.,

in W.P.No.37475/2011 & Connected Matters, disposed

of on 08.12.2017. He further submits that the father

of respondent No.4 has filed a written statement in

O.S.No.466/1957. In the said written statement, the

father of respondent No.4 has clearly admitted that he

has credited the required amount and has prayed for

confirmation of the grant. He further submits that the

land was not a granted land, but in fact it was

purchased by the father of respondent No.4. He

submits

that

respondents

No.2

and

without

considering the said aspect, have proceeded to pass

7

the impugned orders. Hence on these grounds, he

prays to allow the writ petition.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondents submits that the grant was regularized

and it is not a granted land for upset price. He further

submits that the provisions of the PTCL Act are

applicable to the present case in hand. He further

submits that respondent No.4 is in possession of the

property and the Civil Court has recorded a finding to

that effect. He further submits that the submission of

learned counsel for petitioners that Rule 43-J of the

Rules does not