The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order reversing the resumption of granted lands. The court held that the PTCL Act does not apply to alienations made after the expiry of the statutory prohibition period and the petition was barred by delay.
Writ petition dismissed as it is devoid of merit and barred by delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19159 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA H. K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENT NOS.5(A) TO (D) ARE RESIDING AT CHEEMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-4;
…RESPONDENTS
WP No. 19159 of 2014
SMT.ASHRITHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.P.N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R.5(A TO D)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.1.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 30.5.2011 ANNEX-E PASSED BY THE R-3 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the wife and children of original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, wherein the respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner in annulling the sale deeds executed by the original grantee and consequently, restoring the petition lands in favour of legal heirs of original grantee by invoking Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled
WP No. 19159 of 2014
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act").
The petition lands were granted to the husband of
1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 18.09.1951. The original grantee alienated the petition lands under registered sale deed dated 07.07.1974. After the death of original grantee, the petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs sought for restoration of the petition lands alleging that alienation by grantee is in contravention of Section 4 of 'PTCL Act'. The Assistant Commissioner having notified the purchasers conducted an enquiry and allowed the application under Section 5(1)(A) and thereby, ordered for resumption of granted lands to the legal heirs of the original grantees i.e., petitioners herein.
who is the purchaser, preferred an appeal before
WP No. 19159 of 2014
respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner having examined the materials on record, however, found that the alienation was made after expiry of non-alienation clause indicated in the grant order. It is in this background respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the alienation made by the original grantee, which was after expiry of prohibition and before commencement of the Act, does not come within the purview of PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, therefore, proceeded to set aside the order of resumption passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, rejected the application filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee seeking restoration of the petition lands.
No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners, who claim to be legal heirs of original grantee, have knocked the doors of the writ Court.
WP No. 19159 of 2014
petitioners and learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents and learned HCGP. Perused the records.
the findings recorded by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner.
WP No. 19159 of 2014
commencement of 'PTCL Act', is no more
res-integra .
para No.24 of the judgment rendered in the case of MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 has held
that the provisions of 'PTCL Act' cannot be made applicable to the alienations made prior to commencement of PTCL Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case JAGADISH VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA has also culled out para No.24 of MANCHEGOWDA'S CASE, I deem it fit to cull out para No.24, which reads as under;
“24. Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come within the purview of the Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act make this
1 1984(3) SCC 301
position clear, as Sections 4 and 5 become applicable only when granted lands are transferred in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. Granted lands transferred before the commencement of the Act and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly beyond the scope and purview of the present Act. Also in case where granted lands had been transferred before the commencement of the Act in violation of the condition regarding prohibition on such transfer and the transferee who had initially acquired only a voidable title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the granted lands by prescription by long and continuous enjoyment thereof in accordance with law before the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not come within the purview of the present Act, as the title of such transferees to the granted lands has been perfected before the commencement of the Act. Since at the date of the commencement of the Act the title of such transferees had ceased to be voidable by reason of acquisition of prescriptive rights on account of long and continued user for the requisite period, the title
WP No. 19159 of 2014
of such transferees could not be rendered void by virtue of the provisions of the Act without violating the constitutional guarantee. We must, therefore, read down the provisions of the Act by holding that the Act will apply to transfers of granted lands made in breach of the condition imposing prohibition on transfer of granted lands only in those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act and had not lost its defeasible character at the date when the Act came into force. Transferees of granted lands having a perfected and not a voidable title at the commencement of the Act must be held to be outside the pale of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act.”
and findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
it is clearly evident that Sections 4 and 5 of the 'PTCL Act'
WP No. 19159 of 2014
are applicable only if the granted lands were transferred in breach of condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that granted lands transferred before commencement of the 'PTCL Act' and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly found beyond scope and purview of 'PTCL Act'. These significant details are rightly dealt by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner referring to the date of sale deed has clearly come to the conclusion that the alienation by original grantee was made after expiry prohibition indicated in the grant order and therefore, proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of the lands. The order of respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly in consonance with the dictum and principles laid down by the constitutional Bench in the case of MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA (cited supra) reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgments rendered in the
WP No. 19159 of 2014
case of JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (cited
supra).
WP No. 19159 of 2014
seeking restoration of the lands on the ground of gross
delay and latches.
following;
ORDER
Writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the provision of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 apply to transferred lands after the expiry of the period of prohibiti
Whether the application for restoration of lands filed by the petitioners is maintainable after lapse of 12 years
Whether the title of the transferee acquired before the commencement of the Act but after expiry of prohibition can be set aside by invoking the Act
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manchegowda vs. State of KarnatakaApplied¶60
MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1984(3) SCC 301 · Who else cites this
Jagadish vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶62
JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. KADIRAMMA W/O LATE PILLAKENCHAPPA AND OTHERS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
THE TAHSILDAR SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
C MUNIYAPPA (DEAD) W.R. TO EMPANELLED HEIRS
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
