The main question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the suits filed by the first respondent for enforcement of the agreements for sale of granted lands without previous permission of the Government under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 are liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as under:

The first respondent is the common plaintiff in O.S.Nos.2375/2011, 2372/2011, 2370/2011 and 2374/2011 on the file of the 7th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. He has filed the above against different defendants (the petitioners herein) for specific performance of the agreements to sell in respect of the suit schedule properties. In the suits, defendants have filed applications for rejection of the plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) contending that the suit schedule properties are granted lands and that there is a bar for entering into such agreements without taking previous permission of the Government. The statements made in the plaints disclose that suits are barred under Section 4(2) of the Act. Therefore, the plaints are liable to be rejected at the threshold.

3. The plaintiff has filed objections contending that the defendants have received huge amount towards part of the sale consideration. Applications have already been filed seeking permission of the Government for sale of the properties. It is further contended that prior permission of the Government for entering into agreements to sell is not necessary. The question raised in the applications has to be decided after the trial in the suits. Therefore, the plaints cannot be rejected at this stage.

4. The court below has rejected the applications primarily on the ground that the question raised in the applications has to be established by the plaintiff by leading evidence. It is only after the trial, the Court can decide the enforceability of the contract. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the said orders in these writ petitions.

5. Sri Kalyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that perusal of the plaints would disclose that the suit schedule properties are granted lands and attract the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’). The defendants have agreed to obtain permission from the Government under the said Act for the sale of the properties. No such permission has been obtained before entering into the agreements, which is evident from the averments made in the plaints. Having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, previous permission of the Government is a condition precedent for transfer of the lands. The expression ‘transfer’ contained in sub-section (e) of Section 3 includes an agreement to sell. The agreements entered into by the parties without previous permission of the Government are void and are not enforceable in the Court of law. At best, the plaintiff can seek other remedies available to him in law. Therefore, the court below ought to have rejected the plaints.

6. On the other hand, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submits that the defendants have already applied for permission for transfer of the land under Section 4(2) of the Act. There is no bar for entering into an agreement to sell of the granted lands without delivery of possession of the properties. He has drawn my attention to the expression ‘acquire by transfer’ contained in Section 4 (2) of the Act and submits that in order to attract the said Section, there should be something more than an agreement to sell. Atleast, there should be delivery of possession under the contract. In this connection, he has relied on the decisions of the Apex Cou