Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10778
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA, J
SRI M MASTAN RAO S/O M RAGHAVALU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 106978 of 2024
The prohibition on transferring granted land under the PTCL Act applies indefinitely, requiring prior government permission for any transfer.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Section 4(2) - Land grant - The petitioner sought to quash orders regarding land transfer, asserting ownership through a sale deed. The court found that the petitioner failed to obtain mandatory permission for transfer under the PTCL Act, leading to the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 9, 10)
(B) Legal inquiry - The Assistant Commissioner conducted a proper inquiry regarding the land's grant status and the petitioner's compliance with the PTCL Act, confirming the land's non-alienability. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land granted to a deceased individual, but a stranger sought re-grant, leading to administrative orders that the petitioner contested.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, confirming the land's status and the necessity of prior permission for transfer.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the land transfer and the necessity of obtaining permission under the PTCL Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prohibition on transfer under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act applies indefinitely, and the Assistant Commissioner conducted a sufficient inquiry into the land's grant status.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, produced as per Annexure-A, and also the order dated 20.10.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, produced as per Annexure-B.
2. Heard Sri. H. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the materials on record.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the land bearing Survey No.16/1, measuring 4.03 acres, situated at Malapur Village, in Tekkalakote Hobli, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District, was granted in favor of late Sri.Harijana Durgappa, as per the order dated 29.07.1982. Initially, he was cultivating the land. Later, he executed a registered General Power of Attorney, in favor of the petitioner on 27.04.2010, and subsequently, on 14.11.2017, Durgappa executed a registered sale deed and sold the property to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner became the absolute owner and is in possession of the land.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, respondent No.7, who is a stranger to the family of Durgappa, has filed an application dated 17.03.2023, seeking re- grant of the land. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application and ordered to take back the land under Section 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’, for short), and accordingly ordered deletion of the name of the petitioner from the Record of Rights. The petitioner challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner, who passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal and confirming the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, however, he modified the same to the extent of directing the Tashildar to identify the legal heirs of the original grantee and restore the land to them. The Deputy Commissioner also ordered that, in case the original grantee is not survived by any legal heirs, the said land shall be distributed following the procedure as laid down in the Land Grant Rules, 1969, to a person belonging to the SC community only. This order is challenged before this Court.
5. From the materials on record, it is clear that, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rejected the claim of respondent No.7 for re- grant of the land. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner discloses that, since the mandatory permission required under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was not obtained by the petitioner, to purchase the land under the sale deed, he passed the impugned order.
6. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act reads as that;
4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.-
(1) xxxxxxxx
(2)No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer, any granted land, without the previous permission of the Government”.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this restriction applies only for a period of 15 years, during which the transfer or alienation is prohibited. But he failed to substantial his contention. A plain reading of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not suggest such meaning that the restriction is applicable only for a period of 15 years during which there is prohibition on alienation of the property. Therefore, I do not accept the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The next contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, an enquiry will have to be held by the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the grant was made in favour of person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, whether the grant was either on upset price or re- grant, or for a lesser than upset price, and as to whether the alienation has taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the Act. He places reliance on the decision of this
