Brief note on ptcl case
shivanand
(Querist) 31 January 2014
This query is : Resolved
Subject : brif note on PTCL
Message :
Dear sir, We have purchased 7 acre of land which was granted to one of shivappa kallappa naikmakkal in the year 1966 with a condition of non-alienation of the land for a period of 15 years. The grantee alienated the land during the year 1982 and 1985.which is after completion of 15 year.we is the 3rd purchaser of the land. The grantee filed a case with assistant commissioner dharwad (Karnataka),during the year 2005 stating that he belongs to HINDU VALMIKI caste which has been classified as scheduled tribe community there by lending to violation of clause 4(2) of the PTCL act with contention of resumption of land back to original grantee. The assistant commissioner dharwad heard the case and rejected the petition standing that the caste of the grantee has been classified as scheduled tribe community W.E.F 19/04/1991.the grantee filed and appeal to deputy commissioner dharwad during the year 2006-07 .the D.C dharwd has heard the case and upheld the judgment of AC dharwad. The grantee again preferred an writ petition to the High court of Karnataka during 2009 the court had heard the case and again remanded back to the case to the DC dharwad for hearing and for passing appropriate order. Now the case has been called for hearing by the DC on 25/02/2014. In regards to the judgment issued by the high court single and double bench the following points have been brought to perusal the constitution scheduled tribe order 1950 has been issued as per the provision of article 342 of constitution classifying the community under ST and several amendments have been issued to the presidential notification 1950 by adding caste of person inserted to the ST list w.e.f 19/04/1991 Naik,Nayak,Beda,Bedar &valmiki (constitution 2nd amendment 1991 copy and bill passed by Lok saba copy enclosed ) As states above caste every Amendments to presidential notification of 1950. Thre is a specific Effective date, month & year on which the caste for to be considered as ST. In such circumstances the judgments have been issued by the Honble judges considering the caste added to the ST with Retrospective effect with revert back to the presidential notification 1950. Without considering the effect dates,month,&year of amendments by issue of judgments considering as Retrospective effect of 1950, injustice has been caused to the purchaser of the land there by resumption of purchaser land back to original grantee. In view of the above the necessary classification requires on the following points 1) Whether the constitution scheduled tribe all amendments & modification amendments are Retrospective or prospective? 2) On what bases the judgments have issued considering the constitution amendments to revert back to presidential notification 1950? 3) If the all amendments are Retrospective effect for this any of the notification issued in this regards? Dear sir kindly as soon as possible necessary legal advice on the above the doubts may please I communicated. We are waiting for kind advice Thanking you sir Shivanand m desai 9986980722
venkatesh Rao
(Expert) 02 February 2014
May you please scan and mail the judgment of High Court to my mail id?
raoknpv@gmail.com
shivanand
(Querist) 03 February 2014
ok sir i will send
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 03 February 2014
link
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/the-constitution-scheduled-tribe-order-second-amendment-bill-1991-451331.asp
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 03 February 2014
also link
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/brief-note-on-PTCL-case-450656.asp#.Uu-WM_uLRn5
