Karnataka High Court
Sri Doddagiriyappachari vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 September, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.14207 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN
SRI. DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI
S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/OF KHAJI SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANNAMANGALA POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560067
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI V. S. MANOJ,
S/O. SRI V. V. SADANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION.
-2-
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. SRI B.M.RAMESH
S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/OF BOMMANABANDI VILLAGE,
KATTIGENAHALLI POST,
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL - 562114
4. SRI M. HARISHA
S/O. LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/OF KHAJI SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
KANNAMANGALA POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560067.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUNA G.S., HCGP, FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. GURDAS S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR C., FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI. Y. ESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 22.04.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
IN APPEAL NO.PTCL/79/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-W AND
THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL (BET) 16/2024 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-T, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 02.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
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 4th 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 annulled when admittedly
prior sanction was granted by the State Government, in
terms of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Secondly, delay of
more than 18 years was not explained and having regard to
the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka And
Another (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Sri Vivek M Hinduja
And Others Vs. M.Ashwatha And Others (2020) 14
SCC 228, although no period of limitation is prescribed in
the Act for filing a petition, nevertheless, the petition has to
be filed within reasonable period.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also
place reliance on a recent decision of a Co-ordinate bench
of this Court in the case of Smt. Rudramma and others
Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in
W.P.No.29559/2018 dated 09.04.2025, where it is
held that the provision contained in Section 4 of the Act are
attracted only when the granted lands have been
transferred for the first time in contravention of the terms
of the grant and it does not contemplate to govern the
transfer made after the lands have been resumed and
restored to the grantee under the Act. It is held that the
intent of law is thus manifestly clear, that it is designed to
undo a wrong by declaring the alienation void and restore
the land to the grantee so that he can utilize the land for
the purpose that it is granted. While framing the question,
"Whether these provisions could be invoked for a second
time after the lands have been resumed and restored to the
grantee?", the Co-ordinate bench held that the provisions of
the PTCL Act were not meant to grant a licence to grantees
to sell the lands that were resumed in their favour and once
again seek restoration. It was held that a grantee cannot
abuse a remedial statute to perpetuate an illegality and, at
the same time, secure a process which legitimizes his illegal
act repeatedly. The Co-ordinate bench also noticed a
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhadre Gowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner - (2012) 2
KCCR 1529, where it was held, "we are satisfied that
repeated sales at the hands of the original grantee
constitutes the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the
Penal Code, 1860. A person who cheats is definitely not
entitled to seek restoration of the granted land and retain
the consideration received by him by sale thereof.............. It
also needs to be recorded here, that when a grantee
repeatedly sells the granted land, it is open to the vendee
to initiate criminal prosecution against him. Such repeated
sale is nothing but a process of cheating." Thus, the Co-
ordinate Bench has proceeded to hold that on a plain
reading of Section 4, it cannot be in doubt that an
alienation made in contravention of the terms of the grant
or under a transfer in violation of Section 4(2) would be null
and void. However, it was also held that Section 4 only
contemplated that a transfer made for the first time alone
was required to be annulled and it did not contemplate
subsequent alienations made by a grantee after the lands
were restored in his favour.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that after the impugned orders are passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner,
respondent No.4 has entered into an agreement with
respondent No.3, agreeing to sell the lands in question.
This shows that respondents No.3 and 4, in collusion with
each other are trying to defraud the petitioner and are
defrauding the Government, while misusing the provisions
of the beneficial legislation. Respondent No.4 has further
entered into an agreement with another Multinational
Company, trying to make a windfall at the cost of the
petitioner. It is submitted that the conduct of respondents
No.3 and 4 should be taken into consideration, as held in
the case of Bhadre Gowda (supra).
8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas
S.Kannur, appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that
the petitioner, knowing fully well that sanction has been
accorded by the State Government on 15.11.2005, at
Annexure-H permitting Sri Muninarayanappa S/o
T.Poojappa to sell the property in question in favour of
respondent No.3-Sri.B.M.Ramesh on certain conditions that
the purchaser should be eligible to purchase the land under
the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act; that the
applicant should sell the lands as per the prevailing market
value; that the applicant shall purchase agricultural lands
from the sale proceeds received from the transaction,
nevertheless, the petitioner proceeded to purchase the
property from respondent No.3. It is submitted that the
petitioner cannot make allegations against respondent
No.4, since the petitioner willfully purchased the lands from
respondent No.3 who was not the owner of the property
and he was not the person who was permitted to sell the
property. Moreover, the permission granted by the State
Government enabled sale by respondent No.4 in favour
respondent No.3 only. The conduct of the petitioner should
fall under a scanner and not the conduct of respondent
No.4.
9. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that since
respondent No.4 did not sell the property in favour of the
petitioner herein, the cause of action to invoke the
provisions of the PTCL Act did not commence from the date
of the sale deed or the registration of the same. The cause
of action, at the most, may begin to run from the date of
execution of the Deed of Confirmation dated 20.08.2015
and the second Deed of Confirmation dated 24.08.2015.
The application under Section 5 was filed before the
Assistant Commissioner on 08.02.2024, after delay of about
8 years and 05 months. It is submitted that in the case of
Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others (2020)
14 SCC 210 the Apex Court has held that a period of 8
years cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay
and laches as would make the action void, considering that
it is in respect of beneficial legislation for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes community.
10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court
in the case of A K Chikkaveerappa and Others Vs. The
Assistant Commissioner and Others reported in 2022
(3) KCCR 2022 has held as follows:
"8. As noticed in the beginning, this case presents
another bleak picture of the manner in which the
officials of the Revenue Department have been ignoring
the guidelines issued by the State Government while
considering an application seeking prior permission of
the State Government in terms of Section 4(2) of the
Act. This Court has been repeatedly bringing it to the
notice of the State Government that while considering
an application under Section 4(2) of the Act, persons
claiming to be holders of Powers of Attorney should not
be entertained by the State Government. The very
purpose for which provisions are made under the Act,
the Rules and the Circulars issued by the State
Government in the matter of considering of an
application under Section 4(2) of the Act is to ensure
that the persons belonging to the depressed classes are
not taken for a ride. This avowed objective of the
statute is keeping in mind the poverty, illiteracy and
innocence of such persons who have been granted with
lands so that they cultivate the lands and eke out a
living and stand shoulder to shoulder with other persons
in the Society. This Court has come across numerous
such instances where applications are made by third
parties claiming to be the holders of Powers of Attorney,
while the gullible grantees are kept in dark not only
about the restrictions placed in the statute in the matter
of transacting with such granted lands, but also
provision being made to ensure that proper market
value is paid by the purchasers to such grantees. It is in
this regard that certain conditions are imposed while
granting prior permission. One such conditions is that
the grantee who is disposing of the agricultural lands,
shall purchase an alternative agricultural land in order to
maintain himself and his family. Conditions are also
imposed that the prevailing market value shall be paid
to the grantee. It is in order to ensure that these
conditions are fulfilled, the authorities are required to
find out from the original grantee as to whether he
intends to sell the property; to whom he is selling the
property and what is the sale consideration. After
ascertaining all these aspects, the authorities are
required to accord permission.
9. It is found that in many such instances, persons
claiming to be Powers of Attorney of the original grantee
approach the State Government and the persons
manning the Department are not adhering to the
guidelines issued by the State Government. As seen in
the present case, a General Power of attorney is got
registered at the hands of the original grantee. In the
considered opinion of this Court, execution of a general
Power of Attorney granting powers to deal with the
property and sell the property is equally hit by the
provisions of the Act..."
(emphasis supplied)
And further, in paragraphs No.11 and 12 it was held
as follows:
"11. Going by the letter and spirit of the provision,
this Court does not hesitate to hold that if such
Powers of Attorney are permitted to be executed by
the grantees empowering the Attorney to deal with
the granted land, it will pave way to defraud gullible
grantees. The present case is one such example. A
look at the sale deed dated 13.04.2006 evidences the
fact that no sale consideration is passed on to the
original grantee and obviously the registered General
Power of Attorney dated 07.04.2005 is not coupled
with interest. The words 'or enter into any other
transaction' used in the provision would encompass
Power of Attorney also. The law prohibits the grantee
from transferring and any person from acquiring
granted land, without the previous permission of the
Government. This Court has come across several
such instances where gullible grantees are tricked
into executing Powers of Attorney on the premise that
the Attorney will secure the permission from the
State Government.
12. In that view of the matter, it is trite to hold
that the Power of attorney registered by the original
grantee in favour of the 5th respondent is hit by the
provisions of the Act. Section 4(2) would definitely
apply even in a case of Power of attorney, since the
instrument seeks to grant power in favour of the
attorney to sell the property in favour of any other
person. In the considered opinion of this Court, such
execution of powers of attorney granting powers to
dispose of the property or to approach the State
Government seeking prior permission under Section
4(2) of the Act, is also not permissible."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Consequently, it was held that when permission
was accorded by the State Government to Sri.A K
Chikkaveerappa to sell the lands in favour of
Sri.Munianjanappa, a sale deed could not have been
executed at the hands of the Power of Attorney holder in
favour of respondent No.4, contrary to permission accorded
by the State Government. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that the situation is exactly the same in the present case.
This Court held that under such circumstances, where a
sale deed was executed by a Power of Attorney holder
being without authority of law and in contravention of
permission accorded by the State Government, the same is
required to be held as null and void. It is submitted that
the said judgment of this Court in the case of A K
Chikkaveerpappa has been confirmed at the hands of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1402/2021 dated
21.01.2025. The Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the
contentions raised by the appellants therein that appellant
No.1 had purchased the property for due consideration and
that he had acted on the permission granted by the State
Government cannot make a difference to the factual
situation as available in the instant case. It was held that
the 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. It was held that if such permission
is not granted, same would not be valid.
12. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that
the sale deed dated 21.11.2005 under which Sri
Muninarayanappa purchased 2 Acres 27 Guntas of land in
Sy.No.29/3 of Sonnawadi village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagilu
Taluk, Kolar District, has nothing to do with the petitioner
or respondent No.3. The sale consideration in the said sale
deed is Rs.1,90,000/- and whereas the sale consideration in
the sale deed dated 21.04.2006 executed by respondent
No.3 in favour of the petitioner herein is Rs.19,00,000/-
and no part of the sale consideration is given to respondent
No.4 or his family members. This clearly shows that the
petitioner herein, knowing fully well that permission is
accorded by the State Government to respondent No.4 to
sell the property in favour of respondent No.3, the
petitioner has ignored the same and transacted with
respondent No.3 and has paid no part of the sale
consideration to respondent No.4 or his family members.
Learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that the
petitioner cannot make allegations against respondent No.4
or cast aspersions on respondent No.4.
13. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the
learned Counsel petitioner in the case of Smt.Rudramma
(supra), learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas S. Kannur,
submitted that a plain reading of the provisions contained in
Section 5 of the PTCL Act, does not give any impression
that the provisions are attracted only in respect of one
transaction or that the provisions are not attracted in
respect of a second transaction or subsequent transactions.
It is submitted that Section 4 of the Act, does not prescribe
that once granted lands are resumed and restored in favour
of the original grantee or his/her legal heirs, there is no
need to obtain permission at the hands of the State
Government. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said
judgment is contrary to the express provisions of the Act
and the Rules.
14. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the petitioner
has proceeded to purchase the property on the strength of
the sanction accorded by the State Government. In that
view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel submits that the
petitioner is blowing hot and cold, if on the one hand, he is
contending that in terms of the judgment in the case of
Smt.Rudramma, there is no need for a grantee or his legal
heirs to obtain prior sanction of the Government for a
subsequent sale since the property has been resumed and
restored under the provisions of the PTCL Act in terms of
the previous proceedings and on the other hand, the
petitioner is contending that he has purchased the lands
after obtaining permission from the Government.
15. Heard learned Counsel Sri.Mohammed Akil, for
the petitioner, learned Counsel Sri.C.Shivashankar for
respondent No.3, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas S.
Kannur for respondent No.4 and learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2 and
perused the petition papers.
16. It remains undisputed that an application was
filed in the name of Sri.Muninarayanappa, on 15.11.2005
seeking permission from the Government in terms of
Section 4(2) of the Act. Official Memorandum was issued on
07.12.2005 permitting Sri Muninarayanappa to sell the
property in favour of Sri B.M.Ramesh, respondent No.3
herein. However, a General Power of Attorney dated
19.04.2006 is executed by Sri Muninarayanappa, his wife
Smt.Gowramma and their children, minors represented by
their father Sri Muninarayanappa empowering the third
respondent Sri B.M.Ramesh to sell the property and receive
sale consideration on behalf of the executants therein. It is
noticeable that there is a mention of the Official
Memorandum dated 07.12.2005 stating that prior
permission has been obtained from the Government. No
sale consideration is shown to have been passed to the
executants. The General Power of Attorney is registered in
the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram on 19.04.2006.
On 21.04.2006 the third respondent executes a sale deed in
favour of the petitioner herein on the strength of the
registered Power of Attorney. It is stated in the sale deed
that the entire sale consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- is paid
by the petitioner to the third respondent, by cash.
17. It is under similar such circumstances that this
Court held in the case of A.K.Chikkaveerappa (supra) that
this Court has come across numerous such instances where
applications are filed by third parties claiming to be holders
of Power of Attorney, seeking permission at the hands of
the Government, while the gullible grantees are kept in
dark not only about the restrictions placed in the statute in
the matter of transacting with such granted lands, but also
provision being made to ensure that proper market value is
paid by the purchasers to such grantees. In this case,
although it is not clear as to whether the third respondent
got the permission from the Government in the name of Sri
Muninarayanappa, however, it is clear that in violation of
the terms of sanction granted by the Government, the third
respondent got a General Power of Attorney executed in the
place of a sale deed. No sale consideration is passed on to
Sri Muninarayanappa or his legal heirs.
18. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner
sought to place reliance on Sri A.K.Chikkaveerappa
(supra) where this Court having regard to the definition of
the word 'transfer' in Section 3(1)(e) of the Act held that
execution of a General Power of Attorney granting powers
to deal with the property and sell the property would
amount to transfer. Even if that argument is accepted,
nevertheless there is utter violation of the conditions
imposed in the sanction accorded by the Government. One
of the conditions imposed on the purchaser viz., Sri
B.M.Ramesh, respondent No.3 is that he shall pay the
market value to Sri Muninarayanappa. The other condition
is that out of the sale proceeds, Sri Muninarayanappa is
required to purchase another piece of agricultural land, as
an alternative for his livelihood.
19. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that
there is compliance of the conditions imposed in the
permission granted by the Government inasmuch as Sri
Muninarayanappa purchased alternative lands under sale
deed dated 21.11.2005, and having regard to the
chronology of events, where permission was granted by the
Government on 07.12.2005, it cannot be contended by the
petitioner or respondent No.3 that Sri Muninarayanappa
purchased the lands from out of the sale proceeds flowing
from the sale deed dated 21.04.2006 or that Sri
Muninarayanappa, purchased the lands from any advance
amount paid by the petitioner or respondent No.3. Neither
the registered Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2006 nor the
registered sale deed dated 21.04.2006 mention any such
transaction or payment made to Sri Muninarayanappa.
Therefore, such a contention raised by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner that Sri Muninarayanappa purchased the
lands under sale deed dated 21.11.2005 from out of the
sale proceeds of the lands in question, cannot be accepted.
20. The third respondent and the petitioner herein
have violated the conditions imposed in the sanction
accorded by the Government inasmuch as the third
respondent not purchasing the property from Sri
Muninarayanappa. The petitioner too is guilty of violating
the express conditions imposed by the Government. The
learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 is right, while
pointing out to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench
in W.A.No.1402/2021, where it was held as follows:
"9. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that the contentions raised by the appellants
that appellant No.1 had purchased the property for
due consideration and that he had acted on the
permission granted by the State government cannot
make a difference to the factual situation as available
in the instant case.
10. There is a clear bar as to transfer and acquisition
of granted land without prior permission of the State
government. 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."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In the above analysis, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy
Commissioner has placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of A.K.Chikkaveerappa (supra) where it
was held that when permission was accorded by the State
Government to Sri A.K.Chikkaveerappa to sell the
properties in favour of Sri Munianjanappa, a sale deed could
not have been executed at the hands of the Power of
Attorney holder to a third party.
22. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4
is also right in his submission that since admittedly Sri
Muninarayanappa or his legal heirs did not execute the sale
deed in favour of respondent No.3 or the petitioner herein,
the cause of action for filing an application under Section 5
of the PTCL Act, did not arise from the date of the sale
deed. At best, it can be said that the cause of action arose
for respondent No.4 to move the Assistant Commissioner
when he along with his family members executed the Deeds
of Confirmation i.e., on 20.08.2015 and/or 24.08.2015. It
is necessary to notice that Article 59 of the Limitation Act,
1963, prescribes three years for cancellation or setting
aside an instrument and the time from which period begins
to run is when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the
instrument cancelled or set aside 'first became known to
him'.
23. The delay from the date of the Deeds of
Confirmation may be around 8 years 5 months or less than
8 years. The learned Senior Counsel is right while
submitting that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Satyan (supra) has held that delay of 8 years is not so
enormous, having regard to the objective of the beneficial
legislation. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
the law of limitation does not apply to the Act.
24. Nevertheless, since the learned Counsel for the
petitioner sought to place reliance on a decision rendered
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt.Rudramma (supra) to contend that if a grantee or his
legal heirs, on getting the lands resumed and restored in
their favour, once again choose to sell the lands that are
restored to them, then, they would not be entitled to invoke
the provisions of the PTCL Act, for the second time and
seek resumption and restoration, this Court is required to
deal with such contention. For that purpose, it would be
relevant to notice the provisions contained in Sections 4
and 5 of the PTCL Act, which read as follows:
4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement,
contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land
made either before or after the commencement of this
Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such
land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-
section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or
interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed
ever to have conveyed by such transfer.
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this
Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land
without the previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall
apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a
decree or order of a civil court or of any award or
order of any other authority.
(emphasis supplied)
5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.-
(1) Where, on application by any interested person or
on information given in writing by any person or suo-
motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary,
the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the
transfer of any granted land is null and void under
sub-section (1) of section 4, he may,-
(a) by order take possession of such land after
evicting all persons in possession thereof in such
manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except
after giving the person affected a reasonable
opportunity of being heard;
(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his
legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to
restore the land to such grantee or legal heir; such
land shall be deemed to have vested in the
Government free form all encumbrances. The
Government may grant such land to a person
belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules
relating to grant of land.
[(1A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1)
the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that
transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass
an order accordingly.]
(2) [Subject to the orders of the Deputy
Commissioner under section 5A, any order passed]
under [sub-section (1) and (1-A)] shall be final and
shall not be questioned in any court of law and no
injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of
any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the
Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section, where any
granted land is in the possession of a person, other
then the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such
person has acquired the land by a transfer which is
null and void under the provisions of Sub-section (1)
of Section 4.
25. On a plain reading of the said provisions, this
Court finds no such restriction, that an application invoking
the provisions of the PTCL Act is prohibited if granted lands
are transferred after they are resumed and restored in
favour of the grantee or his legal heirs in an earlier round of
litigation under the provisions of the Act. A larger Bench of
the Apex Court, in the case of D.R.Venkatachalam and
Others Vs. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Others
(1977) 2 SCC 273 held as follows:
"If we start from a theory as to what the real purpose
or need is or could be, the danger is that we may be
injecting a subjective notion or purpose of our own
into what is, after all, a legal question of construction
or interpretation, according to well recognised
principles, although it may be necessary, in
exceptional eases, to explain or fortify the
interpretation adopted in the light of so well
understood and well known a purpose or theory that
we could take judicial notice of it and refer to it. The
exposition of the well known purpose or theoretical
foundation must, however, generally, flow from and
explain an interpretation adopted, on the strength of
legally acceptable and accepted canons of
construction, if we are to avoid the danger of an a
priori determination of the meaning of a provision
based on our own pre-conceived notions of an
ideological structure or scheme into which the
provision to be interpreted is somehow fitted. The
path of judicial certainty and predictability has to be
paved with well settled principles of construction and
interpretation."
(emphasis supplied)
26. In Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit And Others
Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others (2001) 4 SCC
534 the Apex Court has held that an Ordinance, if does not
infringe the constitutional safeguards, it cannot be
examined nor can the motive for such a promulgation be in
question. Courts cannot interfere with the legislative malice
in passing a statute. Interference is restrictive in nature
and that too on the constitutionality aspect and not beyond
the same. Legislative malice is beyond the pale of
jurisdiction of the law courts and since there is no
constitutional invalidity nor the same been contended
before the Court, question of interference does not arise. It
was reiterated that,
"It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute
that the words of a statute must be understood in
their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed
according to their grammatical meaning, unless such
construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is
something in the context or in the object of the
statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is
that the words of a statute must prima facie be given
their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of
construction that when the words of the statute are
clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are
bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of
the consequences. It is said that the words
themselves best declare the intention of the law giver.
The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts
should be made to give meaning to each and every
word used by the legislature and it is not a sound
principle of construction to brush aside words in a
statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have
a proper application in circumstances conceivable
within the contemplation of the statute."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union of India and
Others (2005) 7 SCC 484 it was held as follows:
"Two principles of construction one relating to casus
omissus and the other in regard to reading the
statute as a whole appear to be well settled. Under
the first principle a casus omissus cannot be
supplied by the Court except in the case of clear
necessity and when reason for it is found in the four
corners of the statute itself but at the same time a
casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for
that purpose all the parts of a statute or section
must be construed together and every clause of a
section should be construed with reference to the
context and other clauses thereof so that the
construction to be put on a particular provision
makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
This would be more so if literal construction of a
particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or
anomalous results which could not have been
intended by the Legislature. A casus omissus ought
not to be created by interpretation, save in some
cases of strong necessity."
(emphasis supplied)
28. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to
agree with the opinion of the co-ordinate Bench. 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 of the
conditions of grant or violation of Section 4(2) of the Act
which mandates prior permission of the Government for
sale of granted lands in favour of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe persons, 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.
29. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the writ petition lacks merit. The
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
30. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY/DL/JT
CT:JL
