Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R. Devdas, J.
A.K. Chikkaveerappa, S/O Late Muniyappa and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Doddaballapur Sub Division and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.21690 of 2018 (SC/ST)
Decided On : 01-10-2021
Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978 - Section 4(2) - Power of Attorney holder - Contrary permission - Petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent- empowering him to take care of granted land including power to sell or transfer property in favour any other person. - Power of Attorney is registered in office of Sub-Registrar - In schedule of General Power of Attorney, of land is subject matter of Power of Attorney - Thereafter, it appears that said Power of Attorney Holder approached State Government seeking permission to sell property in terms of Section 4(2) of PTCL Act. - State Government is said to have communicated to Deputy Commissioner on permitting original grantee to sell property in favour of under certain conditions - In meanwhile, petitioner-original grantee executed a partition deed between himself and his two sons petitioners herein and registered partition deed in office of Sub-Registrar - Whether he intends to sell property; to whom he is selling property and what is sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
Court has come across several such instances where gullible grantees are tricked into executing Powers of Attorney on premise that Attorney will secure permission from State Government - Moreover, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for petitioners, when first petitioner did not have any right except land, he could not have executed a sale deed transferring of land which was not within his powers or entitlement - Power of attorney registered by original grantee in favour of respondent is hit by provisions of Act. Section 4(2) would definitely apply even in a case of Power of attorney, since instrument seeks to grant power in favour of attorney to sell property in favour of any other person- In considered opinion of Court, such execution of powers of attorney granting powers to dispose of property or to approach State Government seeking prior permission under Section 4(2) of Act, is also not permissible - Orders of Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner suffers for want of proper application of mind. - Impugned sale deed being without authority of law and in contravention of permission accorded by State Government, is required to be held as null and void - Court that in sale deed consent of seems to have been taken, but that by itself will not cure defect - When permission is accorded by State Government to sell property in favour of a sale deed could not have been executed at hands of power of attorney holder in favour of respondent, contrary to permission accorded by State Government.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
R. DEVDAS, J.
Paper publication was taken out as permitted by this Court and consequently, learned Counsel Sri. Shravanth Arya Tandra has entered appearance for respondents No.4 and 5.
2. This is another case where the action of the revenue authorities in considering an application seeking permission in terms of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act, for short), throwing all guidelines and circulars issued by the State Government to wind is exemplified and granting permission to persons who claim to be Power of Attorney Holder of the original grantee is brought to the notice of this Court.
3. The admitted facts are that 3 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/1 of Chikkathethamangala Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner-Sri.A.K.Chikkaveerappa on 09.05.1978. The 1st petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney dated 07.04.2005 in favour of the 5th respondent-Sri.G.R.Prasad, empowering him to take care of the granted land including power to sell or transfer the property in favour any other person. The Power of Attorney is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli on 07.04.2005. In the schedule of the General Power of Attorney, only 1 acre of land out of 3 acres 10 guntas is the subject matter of the Power of Attorney. Thereafter, it appears that the said Power of Attorney Holder approached the State Government seeking permission to sell the property in terms of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. The State Government is said to have communicated to the Deputy Commissioner on 24.01.2006 permitting the original grantee Sri.A.K.Chikkaveerappa to sell the property in favour of Munianjanappa S/o Munishamappa, under certain conditions. In the meanwhile, the 1st petitioner-original grantee executed a partition deed between himself and his two sons viz., the 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein and registered the partition deed dated 16.03.2006 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli. In terms of the partition deed Sri.A.K.Chikkaverappa was allotted 10 guntas of land, while 1 acre 20 guntas each were allotted to the share of the two sons.
4. The 4th respondent-Sri.S.Harish gets a sale deed executed at the hands of the Power of Attorney Holder, the 5th respondent, under a sale deed dated 13.04.2006. The schedule in the sale deed is in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.33/1. Nevertheless, when the 4th respondent sought to get his name mutated in the revenue registers and objections were raised at the hands of the petitioners herein, the 4th respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A dispute was registered in a case No.RA(DH)99/2006-07. The Assistant Commissioner noticed that the petitioners herein had filed an application under the provisions of the PTCL Act and a case in SC/ST 158/2006-07 was registered and therefore rejected the appeal filed by the 4th respondent herein and liberty was granted to the 4th respondent to approach the competent civil Court. However, curiously the Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the application by order dated 27.11.2010 by holding that at any rate, prior permission in terms of Section 4(2) was granted by the State Government and therefore the sale deed dated 13.04.2006 is in accordance with law. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner was rejected upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that firstly, the original grantee has not filed any application before the State Government seeking permission to sell the property. It is the Power of Attorney Holder who has approached the State Government and the petitioners were kept in dark. Even otherwise, permission was granted by the State Government, as could be seen from the Official Memorandum dated 16.02.20
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
