Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J.
Mayura Sreeram W/o Late Dr. Sree Ramasetty - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3093 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 21212 of 2023, Writ Petition Nos. 6053, 8207 of 2024
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vivek B.R.
For the Respondents: V.G. Bhanu Prakash, V. Shiva Reddy
Government permission for alienation of granted lands is only required during the specified non-alienation period; after this period, no permission is necessary for valid alienation.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The court discussed the necessity of government permission for alienation of granted lands, ruling that such permission is only required during the non-alienation period as specified by the terms of the grant and that after this period, the grantee is allowed absolute liberty to deal with the land. (Paras 100, 101)
(B) Land Grant Rules, 1969 - The amendments in the stipulations on alienation show that permission needed from the Government under Section 4(2) arises only if the non-alienation period is still in effect; the court concluded that post-expiry, such permission is not obligatory. (Paras 76-100)
Facts of the case:
The case involves multiple writ petitions regarding the resumption of land granted to individuals from Scheduled Castes for alienation occurring post the stipulated non-alienation period, leading to conflicting interpretations of statutory provisions affecting granted lands. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The court held that since alienation occurred after the non-alienation period, the resumption orders were quashed, emphasizing that the PTCL Act did not apply to such cases of lawful alienation post the non-alienation period expiration. (Paras 101-102)
Issues: The main issues pertained to (i) the requirement of government permission for alienation of land post the non-alienation period; and (ii) interpretation of relevant statutes governing land grants and alienations. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that permission is only necessary during the non-alienation period. Once this condition lapses, grantees are free to alienate land without further restrictions, aligning with the legislative intent to empower less privileged groups. (Paras 100, 101)
Result: Writ petitions allowed, challenging resumption orders deemed unsustainable and invalid. (Para 102)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the land grants (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. issues for legal consideration (Para 7) |
| 3. overview of land revenue laws (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 20) |
| 4. issues for consideration regarding alienation permissions. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. land grant rules conditions (Para 22 , 23 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. court's interpretation of relevant statutes and previous rulings. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97) |
| 7. intent behind ptcl act (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. supreme court interpretation of ptcl act (Para 79 , 80 , 84) |
| 9. legal conclusion and application (Para 98 , 100 , 101) |
| 10. conclusion on the requirement of government permission for alienation. (Para 99 , 102) |
| 11. findings on specific resumption case (Para 103 , 106 , 109 , 110 , 112 , 114) |
| 12. final orders on the writ petitions and their implications. (Para 104 , 105 , 107 , 108 , 111 , 113 , 115 , 116) |
ORDER :
1. For ease of reference, this order has been indexed as follows:
| S. No. | Particulars | Page |
| I. | Facts in the Instant Petitions & Details of the Grant(s) | 8 |
| II. | Issues for Consideration | 10 |
| III. | Interpretation of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1988 & Rules | 11 |
| IV. | Interpretation of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 & the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 | 20 |
| V. | Interpretation of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 | 26 |
| VI. | Citations Produced and Considered | 49 |
| VII. | Application of the Above Interpretation to the Present Case & Conclusion | 62 |
I. Facts in the Instant Petitions & Details of the Grant(s):
2. The facts necessary for disposal of these petitions are as follows.
3. These cases involve grant of land to persons belonging to scheduled caste which were granted prior to the enactment of Act No.1 of 1979 and also after Act No.1 of 1979 was enacted.
4. In all these cases, alienations had been done beyond the period of alienation prescribed under the terms of the grant. However, these alienations were made after Act No.1 of 1979 was brought into force without securing permission from the Government as contemplated under Section 4 (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for brevity “the PTCL Act”). As a consequence, the authorities have passed orders of resumption on the ground that there is contravention of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act, and have declared the alienations as null and void.
5. The details of the date of grant, the period of alienation prescribed at the time of grant, and the date of alienation are narrated in a tabular column as under:
| Sy. No. & Extent | Date of grant | Period of non- alienation | Date of alienation |
| 8 (New Sy. No. 8/P2) 35 guntas | 31.10.1978 (Saaguvali chit, Darkhast) | 15 years | 18.08.1995 (Sale Deed) |
| Sy. No. 130 (New Sy. No. 408) measuring 2 acres 38 guntas | 10.06.1994 (Saaguvali chit, Darkhast) | 15 years | 26.02.2010 (Sale deed) |
| Sy. No. 39/1 B measuring 3 acre 37 guntas | 15.01.1957 (Darkhast) | Alleged as 10 yrs (Saaguvali chit untraceable & not produced) | 11.11.1986 (Sale deed) |
6. Insofar as the facts relating to W.P. No. 21212/2023 are concerned, they are separately dealt with at the end of this order.
II. Issues for Consideration:
7. The questions that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are:
i. Whether the permission of the Government required for an alienation as provided under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act would still be required even after the period of non-alienation has expired; and
ii. Whether the permission so required under Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act is independent of the original terms of the grant and amounts to imposition of a new condition.
III. Interpretation of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1
