The court established that any transfer of granted land without prior government permission under the PTCL Act is null and void, enforcing strict adherence to statutory procedures to uphold the law's intent.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-W dated 22.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-T.

2. The undisputed facts leading to the writ petition are that Smt.Kenchamma and her son Sri Muninarayanappa had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’ for short) calling in question the sale deed dated 25.10.1956, under which 3 acres 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.143 of Khaji Sonnenahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, were sold by Smt.Kenchamma and her son Sri Muninarayanappa, in favour of one Smt. Basamma. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition annulling the sale deed while directing resumption and restoration of the lands in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs. The appeal filed by Smt.Basamma and her daughters were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. This Court in W.P.No.31871/2000, upheld the orders passed by the authorities and accordingly, the lands were restored in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that Sri Muninarayanappa applied for and sought permission to sell the lands, in terms of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act, on 15.11.2005. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of the requirement of the Rules, viz., the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Rules’ for short) and the conditions imposed by the Government while granting permission, Sri Muninarayanappa purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land as an alternative. Thereafter, permission was granted to Sri Muninarayanappa vide Official Memorandum dated 07.12.2005 permitting Sri Muninarayanappa to sell the property in favour of respondent No.3-Sri B.M.Ramesh. However, Sri Muninarayanappa and his family members executed registered General Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2006 in favour of respondent No.3, permitting him to alienate 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No.143, and accordingly, respondent No.3, representing Sri Muninarayanappa and his family members, sold the property in favour of the petitioner, under registered sale deed dated 21.04.2006. Nevertheless, after the death of Sri Muninarayanappa, his legal heirs and family members executed a Deed of Confirmation, confirming the sale made in favour of the petitioner herein. The Deed of Confirmation was registered on 20.08.2015, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Shivajinagar (Bidarahalli), Bengaluru.

4. The petitioner being the absolute owner of the lands in question executed a registered agreement of sale and also General Power Attorney in favour of one Sri V.S.Manoj. The 4^th respondent Sri M.Harisha, S/o Late Muninarayanappa filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act, to annul the Sale Deed dated 21.04.2006. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition, while declaring the Sale Deed dated 21.04.2006 null and void and directed resumption and restoration of the lands in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, before whom the appeal was filed by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale could not have been annulle