2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26657

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
H.R. Suresh – Appellant
Versus
A.J. James – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2025 (SC-ST)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025 (SC-ST)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2025 (SC-ST)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2025 (SC-ST)

The court held that land granted under the Grow More Food Scheme, where the grantee paid the upset price, is not 'granted land' under the PTCL Act, and that permission to alienate resumed land cannot be granted without actual restoration of possession following the mandated eviction procedure.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Sections 4 and 5 - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 39, 67(2), and 136(3) - Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1960 - Rule 43-J - Constitution of India - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Grow More Food Scheme (GMF Scheme) - Whether land granted under GMF Scheme can be considered 'granted land' under PTCL Act - Key legal principle: For the PTCL Act to apply, the grantee must be a person belonging to SC/ST, the grant must be with conditions prohibiting transfer, and the land must be transferred in violation of those conditions - Land granted under the GMF Scheme, where the grantee paid the upset price and acquired title, does not fall under the definition of 'granted land' under the PTCL Act - The condition of non-alienation for 15 years imposed under Rule 43-G is not applicable to grants under Rule 43-J, as Rule 43-J does not authorize such a condition - However, a condition prohibiting alienation imposed in the grant itself (not just in the Saguvali Chit by a subordinate authority) would be binding - The Supreme Court in Guntaiah v. Hambamma held that conditions restricting alienation imposed by authorities under Rule 43-G are valid for grants made under Rule 43-J, but this principle applies only to grants made to SC/ST persons under that Rule, not to lands granted under the GMF Scheme which is a general scheme for increasing food production. (Paras 24-26, 28, 29, 31)

(B) Procedure for Resumption under PTCL Act - Section 5(1)(b) and Rule 3 of PTCL Rules - Resumption of granted land requires a specific procedure: after declaring a transfer null and void, the Assistant Commissioner must (i) take possession of the land by evicting all persons in possession under Section 39 of the KLR Act, and (ii) restore the land to the original grantee or legal heir - Only after such restoration can the grantee seek permission to alienate the land under Section 4(2) - Granting permission to sell land that has not been actually resumed and restored to the grantee is illegal and amounts to procedural irregularity. (Paras 37-41)

Facts of the case:
Smt. K. V. was granted 2 acres in Sy.No.259/22 under the GMF Scheme in 1961. Sri A. was granted 2 acres in Sy.No.259/18 under the same scheme in 1966. Smt. K.V. sold her land in 1967 to Sri B.G.M., whose successors sold 1 acre in 2006 to Sri A.J.J. In 2011, Smt. G. and Smt. B. claimed to be legal heirs of Sri A. (alleging Smt. K.V. was his wife and sold his land) and sought resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption of the land granted to Smt. K.V. (despite the claim being about Sri A.'s land). The Deputy Commissioner later set aside this order, finding that the resumption was sought for the wrong land, and that lands under the GMF Scheme are not 'granted lands' under the PTCL Act. The learned Single Judge upheld the Deputy Commissioner's order but imposed costs. Findings of the Court: The Division Bench upheld the finding that the resumption application was patently false: the applicants claimed land granted to Sri A. (Sy.No.259/18) but sought resumption of land granted to Smt. K.V. (Sy.No.259/22, now Sy.No.376). The court also held that land granted under the GMF Scheme, where the grantee pays the upset price and acquires title, does not constitute 'granted land' under the PTCL Act because the scheme was open to the general public (not reserved for SC/ST), and the grant itself did not impose any restrictive conditions prohibiting transfer. The court also found procedural irregularities: permission to sell was granted without actual restoration of possession. The costs imposed on the State were reduced from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.50,000, with liberty to recover from errant officials. The costs imposed on the appellant H.R.S. were upheld. (Paras 42-44)

Issues: (i) Whether the resumption application by Smt. G. and Smt. B. could be entertained regarding land granted to Smt. K.V. when they claimed through Sri A.? (ii) Whether the PTCL Act applies to lands granted under the GMF Scheme? (iii) Whether the State was liable for exemplary costs for procedural irregularities?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the PTCL Act does not apply to lands granted under the GMF Scheme because such grants are not made with conditions prohibiting transfer typically associated with 'granted land', and the scheme was not reserved for SC/ST beneficiaries. Furthermore, the resumption application failed on facts as the applicants sought resumption of land different from that granted to their claimed predecessor-in-title. Procedurally, permission to sell resumed land cannot be granted unless the land has actually been restored to the grantee following the mandated eviction procedure. (Paras 29-33, 41-42)

Result: Writ Appeal Nos.218/2025, 223/2025 and 225/2025 filed by unsuccessful petitioner are dismissed. W.A.No.1343/2025 filed by the State is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the exemplary costs from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.50,000, with liberty to recover from concerned officials after enquiry. (Paras 46-47) Costs: The cost imposed on the State by the learned Single Judge is reduced from Rs.10 Lakh to Rs.50,000 with liberty to the State to recover the cost from the concerned officials after conducting an enquiry. The cost of Rs.5 Lakh imposed on H.R.Suresh is upheld. (Paras 42, 44) Sections: Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Sections 4, 4(2), 5, 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b); Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 39, 67(2), 136(3); Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 - Rule 3; Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1960 - Rule 43-J, 43-G; Right to Information Act, 2005; Constitution of India; Grow More Food Scheme - Government Orders dated 11.04.1992, 13.06.1942, 30.06.1964. Cases Referred: Guntaiah v. Hambamma (2005) 6 SCC 228; Hambamma v. State of Karnataka 1998 SCC OnLine Kar 162; Chikka Kullegowda v. State of Karnataka 1997 SCC OnLine Kar 178; Nanjamma v. State of Karnataka (Order in WP No.12748/2011, dt. 25.02.2022); Sri.B.Shivalingaiah v. Smt.Nanjamma (WA No.339/2022, dt.19.09.2022); Sri.B.Shivalingaiah v. Smt.Nanjamma (SLP(c) No.4224/2023, dt.24.02.2023). Observations: The court observed that the PTCL Act is a beneficial legislation to protect SC/ST grantees from exploitation, but its provisions cannot be extended to lands granted under general schemes like GMF Scheme which do not have the same protective features. (Para 28): "It is apposite to notice a judgment in the case of Nanjamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others... wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court was considering a fact situation wherein land was granted under the GMF Scheme under Rule 43-J of the Rules. The proceedings for resumption were initiated under the provisions of the PTCL Act... The learned Single Judge noticed that the lands in question having been granted under the GMF Scheme, the grantee had paid the upset price and secured the title of the said property. Hence, the learned Single Judge... held that the land granted under the GMF Scheme at an upset price does not fall under the definition of 'granted land'." (Para 42): "Although there is abundant material to demonstrate that, forcible possession of the property has been taken from the private respondents, it is not clear that the officials of the State were also involved in the same... the said circumstance alone would not justify the imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.10 Lakh." (Para 44): "On the other hand, there is abundant material on record to demonstrate that the appellant/writ petitioner has forcibly taken possession of property from the private respondents and also caused damage to the farmhouse constructed by Sri A.J.James and his wife, Smt. Ancy James. Having regard to the said factual matrix, no ground has been made out by the writ petitioner/appellant in the appeals filed by him to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in imposing costs."