Validity of land alienation under PTCL Act hinges on evidence of original grant and unreasonable delay in claims affects sustainability.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

INTRODUCTION

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7988/2002 (SC/ST).

2. The said writ petition was preferred by the legal representatives of one Doddathammaiah who belongs to Bovi community, inter alia, impugning an order dated 15.10.2001 [the Appellate Order] passed by respondent No.8 [Deputy Commissioner] in Case No.(LND.SC/ST(A)8/2000-01). The Deputy Commissioner, in terms of the Appellate Order, allowed the appeal preferred by the appellants-predecessors in interest.

3. The dispute in this appeal primarily concerns land measuring 5 acres and 11 guntas situated in Survey No.27 of Doddasagarahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, [the subject land]. The petitioners in the case assert that the subject land was granted to Sri Thimmaiah [the original grantee], a resident of Singavara Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru District, through a grant dated 26.04.1938. The original grantee subsequently alienated the land, which, according to the petitioners, violated the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act , 1978 [PTCL Act], rendering the transaction invalid. Claiming through the original grantee, the writ petitioners sought the resumption of the subject land before respondent No.7 [Assistant Commissioner]. The Assistant Commissioner found no records to substantiate the writ petitioners' case and, therefore, by an order dated 28.09.1998, dismissed the petition. However, his successor subsequently issued an order dated 26.09.2000 [the original order], granting the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and directing the resumption of the subject land in their favour.

4. The appellants being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed in terms of the Appellate Order. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 (the writ petitioners) challenged the same before the learned Single Judge, which was allowed in terms of the impugned order.

THE ISSUE

5. The principal question to be addressed is whether there is any material on record to establish that the subject land was granted to the original grantee, and if so, whether the proceedings instituted by the writ petitioners for resumption of land after an inordinate delay of almost 47 years are sustainable.

PREFATORY FACTS

6. There is no dispute that the original grantee, one Sri Thimmaiah, was the original owner of the subject land. As noted above, the dispute essentially is whether he owned the said land by virtue of a grant or otherwise.

7. The original grantee sold the land to one Sri Muniveerappa by a registered sale deed dated 11.07.1951 for valuable consideration. Sri Muniveerappa further sold the subject land under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1957 in favour of Sri Munishamappa. The appellants are claiming their rights through Sri Munishamappa as legal heirs/descendants.

8. The appellants claim that Sri Munishamappa was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land till his demise. They also claim that during his lifetime, he had effected improvements in the subject land. The appellants claim that after his demise, they have been in possession of the subject land.

9. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had filed an application for resumption in Case No.(LND/SC-ST/71/97-98) (New No. PTCL . SR. 41/1999-2000). The said case was kept in abeyance by an order dated 28.09.1998, as the Assistant Commissioner found that the original grant records were not available.

10. It is also relevant to note that the applications to the Tahsildar for change of khatha, were rejected on 14.10.1997, as he found that the land had been sold by the ori