Sale of SC/ST Granted Land Via Power of Attorney Holder is Void if it Violates Specific Government Sanction: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the annulment of a land sale conducted through a Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, emphasizing that any transfer of granted land must strictly adhere to the specific terms of the government's prior permission under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act).

Justice R. Devdas dismissed the writ petition filed by Sri Doddagiriyappachari, affirming the orders of the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners which declared a 2006 sale deed null and void. The court also clarified that the protections of the PTCL Act can be invoked multiple times, even for land that has been previously restored to the original grantee.

Case Background

The case involves 1 acre and 36 guntas of land originally granted to Smt. Kenchamma and her son Sri Muninarayanappa, members of a Scheduled Caste. An earlier sale of this land in 1956 was annulled, and the land was restored to them under the PTCL Act.

In 2005, Muninarayanappa obtained government permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act to sell the restored land specifically to one Sri B.M. Ramesh (Respondent No. 3). However, instead of a direct sale, Muninarayanappa and his family executed a GPA in favour of Ramesh in April 2006. Two days later, Ramesh, acting as the GPA holder, sold the land to the petitioner, Sri Doddagiriyappachari, for Rs. 19,00,000.

In 2024, Sri M. Harisha, Muninarayanappa's son, challenged this sale before the Assistant Commissioner, who annulled the transaction. The petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed, leading to the present writ petition.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel, Sri. Mohammed Akhil, argued:

• The sale should not be annulled as prior government sanction was obtained.
• The application for restoration was filed after an unreasonable delay of 18 years, which is barred by law as per Supreme Court judgments.
• Relying on the Smt. Rudramma case, it was argued that the PTCL Act cannot be invoked for a second time after the land has already been restored once to the grantee.

• Respondent's Senior Counsel, Sri. Gurudas S. Kannur, countered:

• The government's permission was specific: Muninarayanappa was to sell the land directly to Ramesh. The subsequent sale by Ramesh (as GPA holder) to a third party (the petitioner) was a clear violation of this sanction.
• The delay was not unreasonable. The cause of action truly arose in 2015 when the family executed a "Deed of Confirmation." The 8-year period from that date is acceptable under a beneficial legislation like the PTCL Act, as held by the Supreme Court in Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner .
• The transaction was fraudulent as no sale consideration reached the grantee's family, defeating the purpose of the Act.

Court's Analysis and Precedents

Justice Devdas found significant violations in the transaction, rendering the sale void. The court heavily relied on its own precedent in A.K. Chikkaveerappa and Others (2022) , which was later confirmed by a Division Bench.

The court noted:

"The prior permission clearly has to be specific with regard to the person selling the property as also buying the same. The transferee as well as the transferor have to be specific in the order of permission. If such permission is not granted, same would not be valid."

The judgment highlighted that the permission was for Muninarayanappa to sell to Ramesh, not for Ramesh to act as an intermediary and sell to someone else. The execution of a GPA instead of a sale deed and the immediate sale to a third party was deemed a mechanism to circumvent the law and the specific conditions of the government's sanction.

Disagreement with Co-ordinate Bench

A key aspect of the judgment was the court's express disagreement with a co-ordinate bench's decision in Smt. Rudramma , which held that the PTCL Act could not be invoked a second time for lands already restored once.

Justice Devdas conducted a plain reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and found no such restriction. He observed:

"A plain reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, do not in any way suggest that a grantee or his legal heirs are barred from invoking the provisions of the Act alleging violation... after the commencement of the Act i.e., 01.01.1979. Such an opinion will also have a bearing on the express provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which mandates prior permission for sale."

The court emphasized the principle of statutory interpretation, stating that a casus omissus (a situation omitted from a statute) should not be created by interpretation unless there is a strong necessity.

Final Decision

Finding no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court concluded that the petitioner and the GPA holder had violated the express conditions of the government's sanction, making the sale deed null and void. The 8-year delay was deemed reasonable within the framework of a beneficial statute designed to protect marginalized communities.