Prakash and Others Vs. Superintending Engineer (Electrical), O and M Circle, Belgaum and Others

.....of the said trees for a period of 40 years from the date of the document and as such the said document could only be a mortgage deed in substance and not a sale deed. the transaction was transfer within the meaning of section 3(e) of the ptcl act. section 4 of ptcl act prohibits the transfer of granted lands. sub section (2) of section 4 further provides that no person shall, after the commencement of the said, act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the government. the mortgage of the said land by the defendant/grantee in favour of the plaintiff authorizing the plaintiff to enjoy usufructs was clearly in violation of the provisions of section 4 of the ptcl act. the burden is heavy on the plaintiff to prove that the said mortgage was not obtained by him in contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the ptcl act. on facts held, the transaction is in total violation of the provisions of section 4(1) of the ptcl act, the possession of the land in question along with the mango trees grown thereon by the plaintiff could not be held to be lawful possession. therefore, the appellate court was quite justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit. - the matter is well-settled that if an individual raise a dispute it can only be for removal, termination or dismissal.order1. the writ petitions are taken up with consent of parties for final disposal. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. in these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the order at annexure-b issued by respondent 4 stating that the reference is not maintainable on the ground that the dispute relates to seniority and absorption. the matter is well-settled that if an individual raise a dispute it can only be for removal, termination or dismissal. if the workmen wants to raise a dispute with regard to absorption and regularisation, that can only be done by union which can raise the dispute on behalf of the workman. bombay union of journalists and others v the 'hindu', bombay and another, states that dispute cannot be made by an individual person if it relates to regularisation and absorption unless the dispute is taken up by the union.3. in these circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition. writ petition stands dismissed. this will not preclude the workmen to raise any dispute through the union in accordance with law.