Vikramajit Sen, CJ
1. Misc.W.No. 3937/2011 filed for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is allowed. The admitted facts are that the land in question was granted to the father of the respondent No. 3, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community, in 1955-56. The land was purchased by the appellant on 20/11/1987. On 06/12/2006, an application was preferred by the contesting respondent - Sri Ramanaik, praying for the restoration of the possession of the land. The application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, on 24/10/2007, ordering that the sale deed pertaining to the disputed land was declared as null and void, as per the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short "PTCL Act"). The Assistant Commissioner further directed that the disputed land be resumed to Government u/s 5(1)(a) of PTCL Act and as per Section 5(1)(b) of PTCL Act, the land be restored "in favour of grantee". The matter was carried in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere, who by the order dated 05/02/2010, dismissed the appeal. The order takes note of the fact that a memo had been filed by the contesting respondent namely, Sri Ramanaik, praying that the appeal be allowed. However, the Deputy Commissioner, rightly noted the provision u/s 4(2) of PTCL Act and refused to act on the memo. After referring to Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of the PTCL Act, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal.
2. As we have already recorded, there is no dispute that the land was granted to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The PTCL Act, therefore, comes into play and since the same transaction took place after it came into force, by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act, since permission of the Government had not been obtained, the transaction was null and void. There is no error in these findings.
3. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows:
5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.- (1) Where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under subsection (1) of Section 4, he may.-
(a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard;
(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land.
[(1-A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly.]
(2) [Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner u/s 5A, any order passed] under [sub-sections (1) and (1-A)] shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act
(3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4."
4. A perusal of Section 5(1) (b) of the PTCL Act, will disclose that it is not mandatory that the land must be restored to the original grantee. This will be especially so, where the grantee and the purchaser have acted in collusion with each other.
5. In the case in hand, the property changed hands as far as back in the year 1987. It may therefore, be impractical that the possession of the land be restored to the original grantee. This is further fortified by the fact that the respondent - grantee had filed a memo seeking allowing of the appeal. Section 5(b) of the PTCL Act, postulates the resumption of the possession of the land and it be granted to any person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in accordance with the Rules relating to the grant of land. This action can therefore, be considered by the State Government. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, Misc.W.No.3999/2011, does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly, disposed of.
