Vikramajit Sen, C.J.

1. The common question which arises in all these appeals is whether the decisions declaring the sale transaction in favour of the Appellants violates the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’ for the sake of brevity).

While we deal with the specific facts and contentions of each case later, at the outset, we preface this judgment with the legal framework within which the aforesaid question arises.

2. Succinctly stated, the lands in question had been allotted by the Government to persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (earlier compendiously termed as the ‘depressed classes’) on Grants which contained covenants prohibiting the transfer or alienation of such land in perpetuity or for a term of years. The Honourable Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the PTCL Act and instead has lauded its objects namely, the alleviation of the plight of the Depressed sections of our society. Section 3(b) contains an encompassing definition of the term “granted lands”. Section 4 contains t