The land bearing Sy.No.233/5 measuring 20 guntas and

Sy.No.233/6 measuring 38 guntas totally measuring 1 Acre 38

guntas situated in Mangalawada Village, Nidagal Hobli, Pavagada

Taluk,

Tumakuru

District

was

granted

in

favour

of

Chikkathimmaiah vide Government Order dated 9.3.1937 who

belongs to Scheduled Caste community and one of the condition

in the grant was that the grantee shall not alienate the subject

lands for a period of more than 10 years.

3

2.

The original grantee sold the subject lands in favour

of Eeregowda by executing the registered sale deed dated

8.2.1958 who in turn sold the subject lands in favour of

Lakshmamma and Narasappa vide registered sale deed dated

11.10.1967. Thereafter, the partition was effected between the

family members of the Lakshmamma and the petitioner herein

purchased the subject lands from Lakshmamma through

registered sale deed dated 8.5.2018 and thereafter the name of

the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records in

respect of the subject lands.

3.

The petitioner with an intention to develop the

subject lands submitted an application for conversion of the

lands under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to

permit him to convert the subject lands for non-agricultural

purpose. The said application has been rejected on the ground

that the subject lands comes under the purview of the granted

land as specified under the proviso of the PTCL Act, as such the

application submitted by the petitioner under Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be considered. Taking

exception of the same, this petition is filed.

4

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

subject lands were sold in the year 1958 and the PTCL came into

effect from 1.1.1979 and the authority concerned even after the

lapse of more than 40 years from the date of the commencement

of the PTCL Act have not initiated any proceedings for

resumption of the lands as specified under Section 5 of the PTCL

Act and as such the provision of the PTCL Act are not applicable

to the subject lands. Hence, he submits that the impugned

endorsement issued by the revenue authority is one without

authority of law.

5.

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State submits that the subject lands are granted

lands as defined under the PTCL Act and as such the revenue

authority has rightly rejected the application submitted by the

petitioner for conversion of subject lands under Section 95 of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act and sought for dismissal of the

petition.

6.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5

7.

It is undisputed that the subject lands were granted

in favour of Chikkathimmaiah, the original grantee vide

Government Order dated 9.3.1937 who belongs to Scheduled

Caste community and one of the condition imposed in the grant

was that the subject lands shall not be alienated for a period of

more than 10 years. By registered sale deed dated 18.2.1958,

the original grantee sold the subject lands in favour of

Eeregowda and in turn Eeregowda sold the subject lands to

Lakshmamma and Narasappa and in turn they acquired the

subject lands under the partition effected between the family

members thus executed the registered sale deeds dated

8.5.2018 in favour of the petitioner.

8.

The Respondents suomoto have not initiated any

action for resumption of the subject lands under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act for violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, even after the

lapse of more than 40 years from the commencement of the

PTCL Act. Suo moto action has to be initiated under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act within reasonable time if no time is specified for

resuming the land.

6

9.

In the absence of any order of resumption of the

subject lands in favour of the Government, the impugned

endorsement issued by the revenue authority is contrary to

section 95 of the KLR Act and the same is not sustainable.

10.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i)

The writ petition