PTCL Act Can Be Invoked For Second Time If Granted Lands Are Transferred After Being Restored In Favor Of Grantee: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has differed from the view of a co-ordinate single bench which had held that that if land already restored in grantee's favour is sold again, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka SCST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for a second time seeking resumption and restoration of the lands.

Justice R Devdas held PTCL Act does not prohibit filing of an application even if granted lands are transferred after being resumed and restored in favour of grantee or his legal heirs in an earlier round of litigation.

For context, in April Justice N S Sanjay Gowda in the case of Smt. Rudramma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others had held that Section 4 of the Act is attracted only when the granted lands have been transferred for the first time in contravention of the terms of the grant and that it does not govern transfer made after the lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee.

Referring to Apex Court judgments D.R.Venkatachalam and Others Vs. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Others (1977) and others, the Justice Devdas said:

"On a plain reading of the said provisions, this Court finds no such restriction, that an application invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act is prohibited if granted lands are transferred after they are resumed and restored in favour of the grantee or his legal heirs in an earlier round of litigation under the provisions of the Act".

“This Court is unable to agree with the opinion of the co-ordinate Bench. A plain reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, do not in any way suggest that a grantee or his legal heirs are barred from invoking the provisions of the Act alleging violation of the conditions of grant or violation of Section 4(2) of the Act which mandates prior permission of the Government for sale of granted lands in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons, after the commencement of the Act i.e., 01.01.1979.”

Section 4(2) states that no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.

It added, “Such an opinion will also have a bearing on the express provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which mandates prior permission for sale”.

The bench held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Doddagiriyappachari and others.

Smt. Kenchamma and her son Sri Muninarayanappa are the legal heirs of the original grantee of the land. Earlier they had sold the land in favour of one Smt Basamma. Later they invoked PTCL Act and the land was restored to them.

Muninarayanappa applied for and sought permission to sell the lands on 15.11.2005 which was permitted by the government based on certain conditions. Muninarayanappa was thereafter granted permission by the government through Official Memorandum dated 7.12.2005 permitting him to sell the property in favour of BM Ramesh.

However Muninarayanappa and his family members executed and registered a General Power of Attorney dated 19.4.2006 in favour of Ramesh permitting him to alienate certain part of the land. Accordingly BM Ramesh representing Muninarayanappa and his family members sold the property in favour of the petitioner via sale deed dated 21.04.2006.

This subsequent sale was challenged by Muninarayanappa's son M Harisha (the legal heir of the grantee) and allowing Harisha's plea Assistant Commissioner invoked Section 5 (Resumption and restitution of granted lands) annulled the Sale Deed dated 21.04.2006 entered into between the petitioner and B M Ramesh.

The Assistant Commissioner directed resumption and restoration of the lands in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, before whom the appeal was filed, confirmed the order. Against this petitioners approached the high court.

The court noted that the conditions imposed in the sanction which were that, B.M.Ramesh shall pay the market value to Muninarayanappa and other condition is that out of the sale proceeds, Muninarayanappa is required to purchase another piece of agricultural land, as an alternative for his livelihood.

The bench rejected contention of the petitioner that there was compliance of the conditions imposed.

It said, “Having regard to chronology of events, where permission was granted by the Government on 07.12.2005, it cannot be contended by the petitioner or respondent No.3 that Muninarayanappa purchased the lands from out of the sale proceeds flowing from the sale deed dated 21.04.2006 or that Muninarayanappa, purchased the lands from any advance amount paid by the petitioner or respondent No.3.”

It added “Neither the registered Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2006 nor the registered sale deed dated 21.04.2006 has mentioned any such transaction or payment made to Muninarayanappa. Therefore, such a contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Muninarayanappa purchased the lands under sale deed dated 21.11.2005 from out of the sale proceeds of the lands in question, cannot be accepted.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Mohammed Akhil for Petitioner.

HCGP Aruna G S for R1 & R2.

Senior Advocate Gurudas S Kannur for Advocate Shivakumar C for R3.

Advocate Y Eshwarappa for R4.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

Case Title: DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14207 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order