‘Grantee can’t re-apply for land restoration’

Bengaluru: Once an application filed by a grantee for restoration of land under Section 5 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands (PTCL) Act is rejected, the only option available is to challenge such an order; the person or their legal heirs can’t file a fresh application, Karnataka high court ruled in a recent judgment.
Dismissing the petition filed by the legal representatives of a grantee, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said once the authorities come to the conclusion that the alienation, though made within the period of prohibition, ought not be disturbed, the same can’t be raised once again.

Considering that the revenue authorities were forced to determine the issue for want of required documents, the judge also issued general directions, including digitization of records related to grant of land.
In the case on hand, in Nov 1963, one Chandrappa was granted 6 acres of land at Mangenahalli, Channagiri taluk, Davanagere district, with a 15-year non-alienation clause. However, Chandrappa sold 3 acres each to Duggamma and Lakkamma in Oct 1964. Lakkamma then sold the land to Marthandappa. However, in 2000, the assistant commissioner of Davangere allowed the application filed by Chandrappa for restoration of granted lands sold by him and the same was allowed.
Though Marthandappa challenged this, the deputy commissioner rejected his appeal. When he approached the high court, the matter was remanded back in Aug 2003 for fresh consideration.
In the second round, in April 2008, the assistant commissioner again ordered resumption of the granted land. However, the DC allowed the appeal filed by Marthandappa and Duggamma, through an order passed in July 2013. The legal representatives of the deceased Chandrappa challenged the same before the high court.
Suppression of facts
After perusing the material on record, Justice Suraj Govindaraj also noted that on Oct 16, 1992 itself, the assistant commissioner had rejected Chandrappa’s application for restoration and the same had become final, and this was not disclosed while filing the application in 2000. Hence, it amounted to suppression of facts.