The permission to sell granted land under the PTCL Act, 1978 does not require the sale to be made to a specific person, and the grant of permission by the Government suffices the legal requirement.

JUDGMENT

Jyothi Mulimani, J. - Sri. Sanjay Nair, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. R.V. Jayaprakash, learned for respondents 3 and 4 have appeared through video conferencing. Sri. D.S. Shivananda learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 has appeared in person.

2. The facts are stated as under.

It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner in physical possession and enjoyment of residentially converted land of Sy. No. 16/P3, situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk having purchased the residentially converted land from its erstwhile owners Sri. Dodda Muniyappa and others under an absolute registered sale deed bearing No. 2894/2005-06 dated 13.04.2005 registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar at Kengeri.

The property is claimed to be originally a grant land granted in favor of one Sri. Muniswamy on 21.07.1979. The said Muniswamy was put into possession and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was entered in the revenue records and books. The said Muniswamy is none other than the father of vendors of the petitioner and grandfather of respondents 3 and 4 herein.

It is averred that the Grantee had applied for conversion of the land from Agricultural to Non-Agricultural purpose before the Competent Authority. The Authority concerned accorded sanction to use the land in question for residential purpose vide order dated 20.03.1982. After the death of the original Grantee, the revenue records were set right in the name of Grantee's children who are none other than the vendors of the petitioner. The children of original Grantee intended to sell the land in question accordingly they entered into an agreement for sale in favor of one Smt. Ganga Devi. They approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission to sell the land in question in favor of prospective purchaser. Accordingly, the Government by its order No. PTCL. CR. 41/2002-03, dated 13.06.2003 through Special Deputy Commissioner granted permission.

It is said that the prospective purchaser under the Agreement for Sale failed to purchase the land in question. However, the petitioner expressed his willingness to purchase the land and the vendors of the petitioner once again approached the Competent Authority seeking another permission to sell the land in question in favor of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement stating that the Government had already accorded permission in this regard and fresh permission is not necessary. The petitioner after scrutiny of documents and after scrutiny of the permission granted on 13.06.2003 purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 13.04.2005. Thus, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question and his name is entered into the relevant revenue statutory records.

As things stood thus, respondents 3 and 4 being the grand children of the original grantee-initiated proceedings in SC. ST. (S) 28/2006-07 against the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner and contended that the land is a granted land and they are the legal representative's predecessor in title and they belonged to Schedule Caste. It is also contended that the sale made in favor of petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act and sought for cancellation of the sale deed.

The petitioner appeared and filed detailed objections and denied the contents. It was specifically pleaded that the Competent Authority has accorded permission to sell the land in question and hence, the sale made in favor of petitioner is valid and proper. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 05.12.2007 allowed the petition and held that the sale deed dated 13.04.2005 is not valid. It is stated that the order was not pronounced in open and the copy of the order was also not served to the respective parties. It is alleged that the Assistant Commissioner hurriedly passed the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petiti