Karnataka High Court
S Harish vs A K Chikkaveerappa on 21 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB
WA No. 1402 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1402 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. S HARISH
S/O SUBRAMANYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O 312, BENGALURU BELLARY ROAD
BYATARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU-560092
2. G R PRASAD
S/O K GOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE,
by
CHANNEGOWDA KASABA HOBLI, MELURU POST,
PREMA
Location: High
Court of
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA
Karnataka
DISTRICT-562101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. A K CHIKKAVEERAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB
WA No. 1402 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. NARASHIMA
S/O A K CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. NAGARAJ
S/O A K CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ALL THE ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT
CHIKKATHETHAMANGALA VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA-561203
5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
V V TOWERS, BENGALURU-560001
6. THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE DEVANAHALLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.SHIVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & R3;
SRI.DEVARAJ.C.H, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
V.C.O DTD: 19/06/2023 - REQUIREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTION OF LRs OF DECEASED R1 IS D/W)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB
WA No. 1402 of 2021
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR
RECORD IN W.P. O. 21690/2018 (SC/ST) DISPOSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU. B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 1ST OCTOBER, 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.
21690/2018 (SC/ST), PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT
BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2021 in W.P.No.21690/2018.
2. The writ petition was filed by the original grantee and his sons, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application for -4- NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB WA No. 1402 of 2021 resumption filed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act' for short) as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming such order.
3. It is submitted that the property which extents to 1 acre of land in Sy.No.33/1 of Chikkathethamangala Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, had been granted in favour of petitioner No.1. It is submitted that a General Power of Attorney had been executed on 07.04.2005 in favour of respondent No.5 in the writ petition who is appellant No.2 herein. The said power of attorney holder approached the State Government seeking permission to sell the property in terms of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and the State Government sent a communication dated 24.01.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner permitting the original grantee i.e., A.K. Chikkaveerapa to sell the property in favour of one Munianjanappa, S/o. Munishamappa. It is submitted that -5- NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB WA No. 1402 of 2021 pursuant thereto, a registered partition deed was entered into on 16.03.2006 between the original grantee and his two sons. A sale deed was executed on 13.04.2006 by the power of attorney holder of respondent No.5 in favour of appellant No.1. It is submitted that though the grantee and his sons had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act, same came to be dismissed by Annexure-M order which was confirmed in Annexure-N order by the Deputy Commissioner. They had approached this Court and the learned Single Judge, having considered the contentions advanced, found that the definition of the word 'transfer' under the PTCL Act has a much wider connotation than under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of respondent No.5 would also be hit by the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. It was further held that in view of the specific language of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, the permission obtained by a power of attorney holder to sell the property to a specific person and the sale -6- NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB WA No. 1402 of 2021 deed thereafter executed by the power of attorney holder in favour of a separate person i.e., appellant No.1 herein was clearly bad in law and cannot be sustained. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were therefore found to be in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act as well as the permission accorded by the State Government were held as null and void. The application filed by the writ petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner was allowed and the Authorities were required to take action to restore the land in question in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the General Power of Attorney was entered into on a valid consideration and that sale deed was also executed by the GPA holder in favour of appellant No.1 after providing due consideration to the grantee and his family.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB WA No. 1402 of 2021
5. It is submitted that it is on account of the valid permission granted by the Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, the GPA holder had executed the sale deed and as such, the applicants are put to severe prejudice due to the action of the respondents as well as the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the learned Single Judge has specifically considered the definition of 'transfer' under the PTCL Act at Section 3(e) thereof and the wide meaning of it.
7. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act specifically provides that "No person shall, after the commencement of the Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government." It is therefore clear that the transferee as well as the person acquiring the property requires permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
8. It is further contended that the property which was the subject matter of the sale was already subject to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB WA No. 1402 of 2021 partition between the original grantee and his sons before the sale deed was executed.
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.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:2515-DB WA No. 1402 of 2021
11. We therefore, find absolutely no error in the judgment under appeal by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails. Same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38