Allowed¶64

Sri M Shivamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WP/14200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act Karnataka; Section 4(1) retrospective effect; Section 4(2) prospective only; granted land alienation after expiry of non-alienation period; sale upheld; Section 5 application dismissed; SCST writ under Articles 226 and 227; Challakere, Chitradurga; Justice M.I. Arun; WP No. 14200 of 2023; impugned orders dated 20.06.2018 (Deputy Commissioner, Annexure-A) and 19.12.2008/19.12.2018 (Assistant Commissioner, Annexure-B); no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.06.2018 of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-A) and impugned order dated 19.12.2008 of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-B) set aside; the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act against the petitioner dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶64

Sri M Shivamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1975 alienation of the granted land, effected after expiry of the non-alienation period and prior to the PTCL Act coming into force on 01.01.1979, is invalidated by Section 4 of the PTCL Act so as to sustain the Section 5 application. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

In the instant case the alienation took place after the lapse of the non-alienation period of 15 years, a fact not disputed by the learned AGA.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, if the alienation has taken place in violation of the non-alienation clause or any other terms of the grant, the sale is bad in law.

¶47

Key takeaways

Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act has retrospective effect.ratio¶47
Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which pertains to obtaining prior permission of the Government for transfer of the property, has only a prospective effect and is not applicable in the present case.ratio¶53
The court found no error in the sale by the original grantee in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in title; consequently, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 are erroneous.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land granted in 1959 to a grantee belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community was sold in 1975 to the petitioner's predecessor in title after the lapse of the non-alienation period and prior to the PTCL Act coming into force on 01.01.1979. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed in 1997 was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Held (M.I. Arun, J.): under Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act a sale is bad in law only where the alienation violates the non-alienation clause or other terms of the grant; Section 4(1) is retrospective, whereas Section 4(2) (prior permission of the Government) is prospective only and inapplicable to the pre-Act transfer. Since the alienation occurred after the 15-year non-alienation period expired — a fact not disputed by the learned AGA — the court found no error in the sale, held the impugned orders of respondent Nos.3 and 2 erroneous, allowed the writ petition, set aside both impugned orders (Annexures A and B) and dismissed the Section 5 application.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36377 WP No. 14200 of 2023

¶4

CNR: KAHC010335162023

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 14200 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. M. SHIVAMURTHY, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, GANDHINAGAR, CHALLAKERE TOWN - 577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 522.

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:36377 WP No. 14200 of 2023

¶20

CNR: KAHC010335162023

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 522.

¶22

CHOWDAMMA, W/O RANGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

¶23

R. THIPAMMA, W/O KOLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OPP. ARUNA NILAYA, BESIDE HOUSE OF MECHANIC GOWSEPEER, 5^TH CROSS, JANATA COLONY, SOMAGUDDU ROAD, CHALLAKERE TOWN - 577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.S.N.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (ABSENT))

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2018 PASSED BY THE R2 IN PROCEEDINGS NO SCPTL (A)-1/2009-10 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE - A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2018 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS NO.SCPTL/CLK/138/97-98 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:36377 WP No. 14200 of 2023

¶32

CNR: KAHC010335162023

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1959. Respondent No.4 is the legal representative of the original grantee. The original grantee was a person who belonged to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community and she sold the land in the year 1975 to the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein after the lapse of the non-alienation period.

¶35

It was challenged for the first time by filing an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') in the year 1997. The said application was allowed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. An appeal has been filed before respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, who has dismissed the same. Aggrieved by it, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:36377 WP No. 14200 of 2023

¶39

CNR: KAHC010335162023

¶40

Admittedly, the alienation of the land has taken

¶41

place after the expiry of the non-alienation period and

¶42

prior to the PTCL Act coming into force on 01.01.1979.

¶43

Section 4 of the PTCL Act reads as under:

¶44

4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands .-(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or Sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.

¶45

(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.

¶46

(3) The previsions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority.

¶47

As per Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, if the alienation has taken place in violation of the non-alienation clause or any other terms of the grant, then in that event, the sale is bad in law. Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act has retrospective effect. In the instance as stated above, the alienation has taken place after the lapse of the non-

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36377 WP No. 14200 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CNR: KAHC010335162023

¶51

alienation period of 15 years. This fact is not disputed by

¶52

the learned AGA. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent.

¶53

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which pertains to obtaining prior permissions for the transfer of the property from the government has only a prospective effect and is not applicable in the present case.

¶54

For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the sale that took place in respect of the property from the original grantee in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 are to be considered erroneous. Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

¶57

ii. The impugned order bearing No. J¸ï.¹.¦.n.J¯ï(J)-1/2009-10 dated 20.06.2018 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy

¶58

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:36377 WP No. 14200 of 2023

¶61

CNR: KAHC010335162023

¶62

Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition is hereby set aside.

¶63

iii. The impugned order dated 19.12.2008 bearing No. J¸ï.¹.¦.n.J¯ï/¹.J¯ï.PÉ/138/97-98 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is hereby set aside.

¶64

iv. The application filed against the petitioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition, stands dismissed.

¶65

v. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶66

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶67

HDK

Sri M Shivamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Shivamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Khadeer Ahmed Khan Vs the Central Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

N Jayaram Vs R G Sreenivas

Chandra Shekhar Acharya Vs the Managing Director and CEO South Canara District

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chinnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner