Karnataka High Court | PTCL Act May Be Invoked Again If Granted Land Is Transferred After Earlier Restoration | Writ Petition Dismissed
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice R. Devdas upheld the resumption and restoration of granted land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, rejecting a challenge to the proceedings. The Court departed from an earlier view of a co-ordinate single bench that had restricted a grantee’s right to seek restoration after the land was again transferred following an earlier restoration. Justice Devdas clarified that the Act permits a fresh application for resumption even in such circumstances, holding that transfers violating the State’s sanction remain void under Section 4(2), and delay under Section 5 is not a bar.
The petitioner, Sri. Doddagiriyappachari, represented by his power of attorney holder Sri. V.S. Manoj, filed a writ petition questioning two orders: one dated 27.09.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, and another dated 22.04.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. The litigation revolved around 3 acres 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.143 of Khaji Sonnenahalli Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, originally granted to Smt. Kenchamma and her son Sri. Muninarayanappa.
Earlier proceedings had annulled a sale deed dated 25.10.1956 executed by the grantees in favor of Smt. Basamma, restoring the land to the original grantee’s family. Subsequently, on 15.11.2005, Sri. Muninarayanappa sought permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act to sell the land. The Government granted permission through an Official Memorandum dated 07.12.2005 permitting sale to respondent No.3, Sri. B.M. Ramesh, subject to conditions including payment of market value and purchase of alternative agricultural land by the grantee.
Instead of executing a direct sale, Sri. Muninarayanappa and family executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of Sri. B.M. Ramesh on 19.04.2006, authorizing him to sell 1 acre 36 guntas of the land. On 21.04.2006, Sri. Ramesh sold the property to the petitioner for Rs.19,00,000, with payment made in cash. Following Muninarayanappa’s death, his legal heirs executed a Deed of Confirmation in 2015 affirming the sale. However, respondent No.4, Sri. M. Harisha, son of late Muninarayanappa, filed a petition under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner in 2024, seeking annulment of the 2006 sale deed.
The Assistant Commissioner declared the sale deed null and void, directing resumption and restoration of the land to the original grantee’s heirs. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner contended that the sale had Government sanction and challenged the maintainability of respondent No.4’s petition on grounds of delay.
The Court noted: “One of the conditions imposed on the purchaser viz., Sri B.M. Ramesh, respondent No.3 is that he shall pay the market value to Sri Muninarayanappa. The other condition is that out of the sale proceeds, Sri Muninarayanappa is required to purchase another piece of agricultural land, as an alternative for his livelihood.” The Court found that no sale consideration was paid to Sri. Muninarayanappa or his legal heirs.
The Court further stated: “The third respondent and the petitioner herein have violated the conditions imposed in the sanction accorded by the Government inasmuch as the third respondent not purchasing the property from Sri Muninarayanappa. The petitioner too is guilty of violating the express conditions imposed by the Government.”
On the issue of limitation, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner (2020) 14 SCC 210, observing: “The delay from the date of the Deeds of Confirmation may be around 8 years 5 months or less than 8 years… the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that delay of 8 years is not so enormous, having regard to the objective of the beneficial legislation. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the law of limitation does not apply to the Act.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on a coordinate bench decision in Smt. Rudramma v. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.29559/2018), the Court observed: “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.”
The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A. No.1402/2021, recording: “The prior permission clearly has to be specific with regard to the person selling the property as also buying the same. The transferee as well as the transferor have to be specific in the order of permission. If such permission is not granted, same would not be valid.”
Justice R. Devdas, while concluding the matter, stated: “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.”
“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.”
“For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition lacks merit. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Mohammed Akhil, Advocate
For Respondents: Sri. Aruna G.S., High Court Government Pleader, Sri. Gurdas S. Kannur, Senior Counsel for Sri. Shivakumar C., Sri. Y. Eshwarappa, Advocate
Case Title: Sri. Doddagiriyappachari v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Others
Case Number: W.P.No.14207 of 2025 (SC-ST)
Bench: Justice R. Devdas
