The petitioners have impugned the order dated

10.05.2017 in No.L.N.D/S.C.S.T 71/2015-16 by the

Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub Division, Kolar (the

third respondent) and the subsequent order dated

02.11.2021

in

P.T.C.L/26/2017

by

the

Deputy

Commissioner,

Kolar

District,

Kolar

(the

second

respondent). The learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government pleader, who

accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, are heard

for final disposal of the petition.

2.

The petitioners’ case is that they along with

Smt. Jayamma have executed power of attorney dated

25.10.2009 for the limited purposes of enabling the

attorney to secure diversion of the land in Sy.No.1/P1,

measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Karinayakanahalli

4

Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk (the subject property)

from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes under

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964

and they did not confer any authority to transfer the

subject property. The subject property is allotted to

Smt. Jayamma in the year 1982-1983 and is subject to

the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’). The

petitioners upon ascertaining that the attorney was

misusing the power of attorney dated 25.10.2009 has

caused the legal notice dated 12.10.2012 canceling the

power of attorney and notwithstanding the same, an

application for permission under Section 4(2) of the

PTCL is filed by the attorney resulting in the impugned

sale.

3.

The Assistant Commissioner as well as the

Deputy Commissioner have refused the proceedings

initiated by the petitioners under Section 5 of the PTCL

5

Act primarily on the ground that the sale is consequent

to

the

permission

granted,

and

insofar

as

the

petitioners’ grievance against the power of attorney

dated 25.10.2009, the Deputy Commissioner has

observed that the petitioners will have to work out their

grievance in a properly instituted civil suit and would be

outside the domain of consideration under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners’ predicament would be that

even if they succeed in the civil suit that they may

institute for vindication of their case, the petitioners

may not succeed entirely in the civil suit because of the

observation that the sale in favour of the fourth

respondent is consequent to permission under Section

4(2) of the PTCL Act and therefore, this Court must

intervene. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioners cannot controvert that the merits of the

6

petitioners’ case against the power of attorney dated

25.10.2009 cannot be examined in the proceedings

under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The question whether

the power of attorney has been misused to obtain

permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act will have

to be necessarily examined in the light of the evidence

led by the rival parties. If the petitioners succeed in

their defence against the power of attorney, the merits

of the permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act

will have to be examined in the light of the decision on

the petitioners’ defence as against power of attorney.

5.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered

view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to

the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the

competent civil Court observing that the petitioners

should also be at liberty to seek consequential relief

even insofar as the permission granted under Section

4(2) of the PTCL Act. Hence, leaving open all the

7

questions to be decided in a properly instituted civil

proceedings before the competent Court, the petition

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RB