Proceedings Under PTCL Act For Resuming Lands Already Sold After Being Earlier Resumed Would Be Illegal: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that the proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, in short - PTCL Act for resuming the lands which had been sold after being earlier resumed, would be illegal.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying to quash the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District.

A Single Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda observed, “It therefore follows that the proceedings initiated under the PTCL Act for resuming the lands which had been sold after they had been earlier resumed under the provisions of the PTCL Act would be illegal and without jurisdiction.”

The Bench explained 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 of the lands.

Advocate G. Balakrishna Shastry appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while AGA Savithramma and Advocate Bhojaraja S.V. appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Case Background

In 1961, a land situated at Kenchammanahalli village of Gudal post, Davanagere District was granted by the Tahsildar to one Siddappa son of Badesiddappa with a condition that said land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years. However, in 1970, Siddappa sold the said land to one G. Kotrappa son of Jimbagi Pachaksharappa under a registered Sale Deed conveying the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 400/-. Kotrappa, thereafter, proceeded to sell the land to one K. G. Sharanappa son of Goudra Channappa under the Sale Deed in 1972, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. Ten years later, i.e., in 1982, Siddappa - the grantee approached the Assistant Commissioner (AC) by filing an Application for resumption under the PTCL Act. The AC directed the resumption of the land in his favour and the same was also resumed in his favour.

Within a month, he proceeded to alienate the land via Sale Deed in favour of Gowdra Shivappa and Tungamma. The Tahsildar submitted a report in the year 2002 informing the AC about the alienation, and the AC thereafter proceeded to initiate proceedings for a second time under the PTCL Act for resumption. The AC ultimately passed an Order, directing resumption of the land for the second time and held that the same was vested in favour of the State Government. Against this Order, an Appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner (DC) but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, a Writ Petition was filed which was allowed, remanding the matter to AC to re-hear the same. The AC ordered for resumption of the land and being aggrieved, Shivappa - the purchaser approached DC who allowed his Appeal. Being aggrieved by this, the grantee was before the High Court.

Issues for Consideration

The following two questions arose before the Court for consideration –

i. Whether the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, refusing to resume the land on the ground that resumption proceedings had been initiated belatedly, is correct; and

ii. When once the granted lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee under the provisions of the PTCL Act, can the provisions of the PTCL Act be invoked for a second time to annul a sale made after restoration of the lands in favour of the grantee?

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The answer to the first question would have to be in the affirmative, in light of the three Division Bench rulings of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Gouramma, Akkayamma and Manjula which have categorically held that invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act belatedly—at any rate, after 12 years—would be illegal.”

The Court reiterated that even if the recent amendment of 2023 to the PTCL Act is taken into consideration, the proceedings are, nevertheless, required to be annulled if they are vitiated due to delay and laches.

“However, notwithstanding the answer to the first question—which would result in the dismissal of the writ petition—in my view, the second question would also have to be considered in light of several cases where the grantees, on getting their granted lands resumed in their favour, have proceeded to once again sell the land and are thereafter seeking restoration of the lands for a second time”, it further remarked.

The Court noted that not only would a transfer effected in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA), but even mere agreements to transfer the granted lands would attract the provisions of the Act.

“Any alienation made in contravention of Section 4(2) i.e., without obtaining the prior approval of the Government, would also be null and void”, it also noted.

The Court remarked that the intent of the law is 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, which was to uplift them from their social and financial backwardness.

“The question as to whether the transfer sought to be made by the grantee for a second time is in accordance with the terms of the grant or the law relating to the grant, is not being considered in this case, and for the purpose of considering the effect of the alienation after such land is resumed, it is assumed that prior permission of the Government was necessary”, it said.

The Court observed 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 Act was designed to help the weak and downtrodden and not abuse their weakness in order to unjustly enrich themselves”, it added.

In addition, the Court remarked that a legislative armour, designed to protect a deprived class, cannot be used by the deprived class to perpetuate an illegality and gain immunity from such illegal acts.

“It is therefore clear that this Court has clearly held that the act of a grantee in repeatedly selling the granted lands which had been resumed in his favour would be a criminal offence amounting to cheating. The provisions of a remedial statute cannot be utilized for perpetuating a crime”, it reiterated.

The Court also reiterated that the action of a grantee, in once again (or repeatedly) selling the lands which are resumed in his favour, amounts to a crime.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Smt. Rudramma & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:15313)

Click here to read/download the Judgment