Point of Law: Prohibition of transfer of granted lands - An application under Section 5 of PTCL Act, could be entertained by Assistant Commissioner if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of PTCL Act.

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

1. The writ petitioner is calling in question the validity and correctness, including the authority of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner to entertain an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’, for short), at the behest of respondents No.3 to 5.

2. A brief background is required to be stated in order to appreciate the issue raised by the petitioner. 2 acres of land in Sy.No.171 situated at Kumbalagodu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was granted on 09.07.1953 in favour of one Kenchaiah. Respondents No.3 to 5 claim to be the legal heirs of the said Kenchaiah. Respondent No.6 intended to purchase the said land from respondents No.3 to 5. However, since there was a mandatory provision under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, requiring prior permission to be taken from the State Government before a granted land could be transferred in favour of any other person, an application was made by the respondents No.3 to 5 to the State Government. The State Government seems to have called for the information from the concerned Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in turn sought for information from the concerned Tahsildar. Consequently, the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department communicated on 17.08.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner giving permission to respondents No.3 to 5 to alienate the property, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner passed an Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2006 at Annexure-A, indicating that in terms of the permission granted by the State Government, respondents No.3 to 5 are permitted to transfer the property in favour of respondent No.6, subject to the conditions imposed therein.

3. Consequent to the said permission having been granted, respondents No.3 to 5 executed an absolute sale deed dated 16.09.2006, in favour of respondent No.6 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.46,00,000/-. Consequently, the petitioner herein purchased the said property from respondent No.6 under sale deed dated 26.10.2020. Thereafter, the lands were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, by an order of the Deputy Commissioner. Curiously, respondents No. 3 to 5 approached the Assistant Commissioner on 20.02.2016 by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, seeking resumption and restoration of the lands in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28.07.2016, declaring that the sale deeds dated 16.09.2006 and 26.10.2010 are null and void and consequently, directed resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondents No.3 to 5 herein. The Assistant Commissioner has also directed restoration of the names of respondents No.3 to 5 in the revenue records.

4. Further, respondents No.3 to 5 approached respondent No.7-The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to put them in possession of the land in terms of the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner.

A notice was issued by the Commissioner to the concerned Tahsildar. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned Counsel Sri. M R Rajagopal, appearing for the petitioner submits that when once permission has been granted under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, and consequently, transfer has been effected, there was no occasion for respondents No.3 to 5 to approach the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 5 of the Act on the ground that there has been violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Since a preliminary objection was raised at the hands of the learned Counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 that there being an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 5A of the PTCL Act and the writ petition cannot be entertained, the learned Counsel submitted that it is a well settled position of law that when an auth