Land regularized due to unauthorized occupation is not considered 'granted land' under the PTCL Act, thus resumption proceedings initiated under the Act are invalid.

CAV ORDER

The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:

1. On 26.12.2002, the Committee constituted for regularising unauthorised occupation passed an order regularising the unauthorised possession of Goniyappa in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, situated in Rangapura village of Holehonnur 3^rd Hobli of Bhadravathi Taluk. Pursuant to this order, a saguvali chit was also issued to Goniyappa on 13.02.2003, with the usual condition that it shall not be alienated within a period of 15 years.

2. On 31.08.2009, Goniyappa chose to execute a registered Will bequeathing the aforementioned land in favour of Kumari (the writ petitioner), who was not related to him. Goniyappa is also stated to have executed a General Power of Attorney in her favour.

3. On 14.01.2011, Goniyappa passed away and the bequest came into effect.

4. On 25.11.2013, Kumari instituted a suit in O.S.490/2013 against Rangappa (the son of Goniyappa) seeking a declaration that she was the owner in possession of the suit property and for a consequential decree of injunction. She stated that she was constrained to file the suit, since Rangappa was trying to interfere with her possession.

5. On 12.01.2016, however, a compromise was entered into between Kumari and Rangappa, whereby Rangappa conceded that his father had executed a Will in favour of Kumari and on that basis, she was in possession. He stated that he had no objection for a decree being passed in her favour. Accordingly, on the basis of this compromise, the suit was decreed.

6. On 07.09.2019, though Rangappa had conceded for a decree in favour of Kumari, he proceeded to file an application for resumption and restoration of the land which had been granted to his father before the Assistant Commissioner as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“the PTCL Act”). He contended that the land had been transferred in violation of the terms of the grant by virtue of the bequest.

7. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties and holding an enquiry, proceeded to hold that the execution of a Will to Kumari amounted to a transfer as defined under the Act and since the transfer had been made within the prohibited period of non-alienation, the land was required to be resumed and restored to the legal heir of Goniyappa.

8. Being aggrieved by this order, Kumari preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner found no fault with the order of the Assistant Commissioner and proceeded to confirm his order and dismissed the appeal.

9. Being aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition is filed by Kumari.

10. Sri. Nadig, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows:

i. The land in question cannot be considered as a granted land as defined under the PTCL Act since it was not a land granted to Goniyappa because he belonged to a Scheduled Caste, but the land had been granted to him because he was in unauthorised occupation of the same.

ii. Only if a land is granted under the Land Grant Rules from the quota of land earmarked for SC/ST can it be considered as a granted land.

iii. A testamentary disposition of a granted land is excluded from the definition of the granted land under the PTCL Act and hence,