Karnataka High Court
Sri.Dhariyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254
WP No. 104840 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104840 OF 2016 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DHARIYAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. NEELAVVA YALLAPPA HARIJAN,
MANJANNA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
E
R/O: BUDNI K.D., TAL: MUDHOL,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
DIST: BAGALKOT.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
4. SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. BHIMAPPA MANG,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
SRI. SHIDLEPPA @ BELLAPPA
S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
5. KUMARI SAPANA D/O. SHILAPPA @
BELLAPPA MANG @ KALALEPPAGOL,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254
WP No. 104840 of 2016
HC-KAR
AGE: 04 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
MINOR GUARDIAN
SRI. KULALEPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. SRI. KULALEPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG,
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
SRI. YALLAPPA IRAPPA UPPAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
7. SMT. NEELAVVA D/O. YALLAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
8. SMT. YALLAVVA RAMAPPA HOSUR,
MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
SRI. BASAPPA HANAMANT MANG,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
9. SMT. YALLAVVA
W/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
10. SMT. CHANDRAVVA
D/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254
WP No. 104840 of 2016
HC-KAR
11. SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
12. SRI. VITHAL
S/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
13. SRI. SANGAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
14. SRI. KARIYAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
15. SRI. TUKARAM
S/O. BASAPPA MANG @ MYAGINAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDAPUR, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
SRI. YAMANAPPA BHIMAPPA MANG,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
16. SMT. MAYAVVA
W/O. YAMANAPPA MANG @ KALALEPPAGOL,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BADNUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
17. SRI. DURGAPPA
S/O. YAMANAPPA MANG @ KALALEPPAGOL,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254
WP No. 104840 of 2016
HC-KAR
SINCE DECEASED LEAVING BEHIND
RESPONDENTS NOS.16, 18 & 19 AS LEGAL HEIRS
18. SMT. RUKMAVVA
W/O. HANAMANT MANG @ KALALEPPAGOL,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BADNUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
19. SRI. BHIMAPPA
S/O. YAMANAPPA MANG @ KALALEPPAGOL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADNUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4, R6-R16, R18 & R19 ARE SERVED;
R5 IS MINOR R/BY R6;
R17 IS DECEASED; R16, R18 & R19 ARE TREATED
AS LRS OF DECEASED R17 V/O DATED 09/01/2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ORDER BEARING NO.PTCL/AP-11/2014-15 DATED
19.05.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CONFIRMING
THE ORDER BEARING NO.PTCL:CR-55:2001 DATED 18.12.2001
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A &
D RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254
WP No. 104840 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached the Court calling in question the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act', for short), whereby, the sale in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in title has been declared as null and void and the land has been ordered to be resumed and restored to the original grantee/his heirs.
Brief Facts:
2. The petitioner's father purchased the land bearing Sy.No.5/6A measuring 2 acres at Siddapur village, Jamakhandi taluk, through a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1998 from respondent No.4 and her sons. The purchaser's name was entered in the revenue records and the possession followed. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's name was mutated and continued in -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR the revenue records. Respondent No.4 initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 18.12.2001, allowed the appeal, cancelled the mutation entries and directed restoration of land to the original grantee. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who initially set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order on 18.05.2006. Respondent No.3, not party earlier, challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order before this Court in W.P.No.4233/2008, which resulted in remand to the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Upon remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2016, confirming the Assistant Commissioner's order. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondents placing reliance on Sections 3 and 4 of the PTCL Act, would contend that, even if the grant order does not expressly -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR prescribe a non-alienation clause, the transfer effected after the commencement of the PTCL Act, without obtaining prior permission contemplated under Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act, is hit by the statute. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Dharma Naika Vs. Rama Naika and Another1 (Dharma Naika) to contend that the transfer of granted lands effected without prior permissions, are void and authorities are bound to order resumption and restoration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the foundation for invoking the PTCL Act is the existence of "granted land" with a subsisting condition restricting alienation, either under the terms of the grant or the law prohibiting for such grant. It is argued that in the present case, the grant order does not contain any prohibition/non-alienation clause, and hence the very occasion to seek prior permission does not arise. 1
AIR 2008 SC 1276 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Mayura Sreeram Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others2 (Mayura), wherein, it is held that the permission contemplated under Section 4(2) is not a perpetual condition and is attracted only where there exists a subsisting non-alienation condition under the terms of the grant or the applicable grant rules.
7. This Court has carefully considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether, in the absence of a non-
alienation/prohibition clause in the grant order or any restriction traceable to the law governing the grant, the authorities were justified in declaring the transfer as void and by involving Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act and ordering resumption/restoration?"
2
W.P,No.3093/2022 and connected matters D.D 02.05.2025 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR
8. In order to answer the point for consideration, the section governing the present facts needs to be looked into. Section 4 (1) and (2) of the PTCL Act reads as under:
"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) xxx"
9. Section 4 (1) declares a transfer of granted land as null and void only if it is in contravention of:
a) the terms of the grant or
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR
b) the law prohibiting for such grant or
c) Sub-Section (2).
10. Section 4 (2) states that after commencement of the Act, no person shall transfer or acquire by transferring any granted land without the prior permission of the Government.
11. The crucial interpretative question, therefore, is what the "permission" under Section 4 (2) meant to control and when does the requirement arise? Section 4 (2) with the grant regime and Section 6 of the PTCL Act, if read together, the permission is demanded only when there exists a subsisting restriction on alienation under the grant/grant rules, it cannot be read as creating a perpetual disability after the restriction has spent itself, nor can it invoked when the grant itself never imposed a prohibition.
12. At the stage, it is relevant to look into the grant order, which is produced by the petitioner along with the memo and the conditions prescribed in the grant to the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR grantee in respect of the present schedule property is culled out as under:
"Under the circumstances S.Nos.5 and 6 Siddapur are hereby granted on new and impartiable tenure to the following persons as detailed below.
Sl. Name of the S. Plot Area O.P. Installment No. grantee No. No. A-G fixed 1. Shri Tippanna 5 18 4-00 Rs.1300/- 10 Hanamappa Mang 2. Parappa Bhimappa 5 27 4-00 Rs.1300/- 10 Mang 3. Basappa 5 36 4-00 Rs.1300/- 10 Hanamappa Mang 4. Bhimappa 5 45 4-00 Rs.1300/- 10 Lakkavva Mang 5. Yamanappa 5 54 4-00 Rs.1300/- 10 Peerappa Mang 6. Maruti Huseni 5 61 4-24 Rs.833/- Kambale 7. Mallappa 5 72 4-25 Rs.833/- Sannappa Machigar 8. Shrimati Kasavva 5 83 4-25 Rs.834/- 10 Mother santavva Madar 9. Shri. Giramallappa 6 1 4-11 Rs.1125/- 4 Mallappa Teli
S.Nos.5 and 6 are divided into sub-divisions as shown in the sketch at pages 263 and 261 respectively.
The grant of the lands is subject to the following conditions.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR
1) The grantees should credit the first installment within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the order.
2) The subsequent installments should be paid within a period of one month from the date of 2nd installment of the L.R.
3) Interest at the rate of 5% in half the O.P. should be recovered every year. No interest shall be levied for the first year.
In case any installment is not paid by the grantees on due date if it is decided to condone the delay and not to resume the ---- interest should be recovered at the ---- the amount of installment for the period of delay -
--- along with the installment.
4) The grantees should undertake the soil conservation measures as may be recommended by the S.C.Dept. The grantees in case of the Civil Court's decision declaring the lands as belonging to any claimants will have to gorego their claims on refund of O.P. paid by them in order to restore the lands to the claimants.
5) The grantees should personally cultivate the lands.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR
6) For breach of any of the above conditions or if the grantees neglect cultivation and keep the lands fallow continuously for a period of two years without any valid reasons the lands shall be liable to be resumed to Govt. without payment of any compensation.
The grantees should be put in possession --- lands after the bonds are got executed after recovering the --- of first installment."
13. The PTCL Act is a protective statute intended to undo exploitative alienations made in breach of the conditions of grant. The very scheme of Section 4 (1) proceeds on that premise, transfers become void when they are in contravention of the terms of the grant or the law providing for such grant, besides the safeguard under Section 4 (2). Therefore, where the grant record does not disclose any restriction or non-alienation condition, the first two limbs of Section 4 (1) are not attracted at all.
14. If Section 4 (2) is read as an independent condition applicable to every granted land forever, it would
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR produce anomalous consequences by effectively "freezing"
alienability for all time, even in cases where the grant regime contemplated only a limited restriction or where the grant itself imposed none. The Co-ordinate Bench in Mayura Sreeram's case as held at paragraph No.62 to 76 as under:
62. "The permission that is contemplated under Section 4(2) would have to be read in the context of the Rule relating to the grant and also the provisions of the PTCL Act and if it so read, it becomes clear that the permission contemplated under Section 4(2) would be the permission that was necessary to alienate the granted land during the specified period of non- alienation (i.e., the term of the grant).
63. It must be noted here that under the proviso to Rule 9, permission to alienate the granted land within the prescribed period was permissible only if the Deputy Commissioner were to grant permission.
64. As can be noticed from the Rules, a grant could have been made by the Tahsildar or the Assistant Commissioner, depending on the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR extent of the land being granted. However, in the event of a grantee seeking to alienate, irrespective of who had granted the land, he had to secure permission from the highest officer of the district, namely the Deputy Commissioner. This, obviously, was to act as a check over the possibility of any lower ranked officers granting permission for the alienation of the land mechanically.
65. However, it is to be noticed that the permission contemplated under Section 4(2) is of an even higher authority than that of the Deputy Commissioner. The permission that is required under Section 4(2) is that of the Government. Thus, even if the grantee wanted to sell the property as provided under the terms of the grant, he has to secure not only the permission of the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under the provisions to Rule 9, but also by the State Government under Section 4(2), which is indisputably the highest authority in the State and the owner of the granted land.
66. This, basically, indicates that whenever the period of non-alienation was subsisting, permission--not only from the Deputy
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR Commissioner but also from the State Government--was required to be secured. To put it differently, even if the Deputy Commissioner had granted permission as contemplated under the proviso of Rule 9 (which was the law relating to the grant), the grantee or the purchaser would still have to approach the Government and the Government had to accord permission for the transfer.
67. This only means that there was a double safeguard brought into place after the PTCL Act was enacted. In fact, the Land Grant Rules, as observed above, was only amended in 1993 which inserted the requirement of the applicability of the PTCL Act for alienating the land. Thus, technically speaking, from the year 1979 to 1993 there was a vacuum.
68. As per the terms of the grant, the Deputy Commissioner could have granted permission and the property could have been transferred, but since Section 4(2) contemplated obtaining permission from the Government, the proviso to Rule 9 was amended and it was also made subject to the provisions of the PTCL Act. This therefore
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR necessitated the Government's approval prior to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. It is for this reason that 'permission to alienate' is considered and granted by the Government only after a recommendation is made by the Deputy Commissioner.
69. Since the original term of the grant permitted alienation even within the period of non-alienation and the Rules that were in existence as on the date of Act were continued and were not amended enlarging the period of non-alienation for lands granted to SC/ST, the obvious implication is that the permission contemplated under Section 4(2) would only have to be obtained when the period of the non- alienation would still be subsisting as on the date of the proposed transfer.
70. The PTCL Act was enacted in the year 1979 and, as observed above, was dealing with the transgressions already made to the terms of the grant and the alienations made prior to the Act coming into force. The underlying objective of the Act was to prevent alienations in contravention of the terms of the grant and was never to bar the alienation
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR for all time to come.
71. If it was the intent of legislature that no land granted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons should be made without the permission of the Government, as contemplated under Section 4(2), necessarily, the corresponding Land Grant Rules would have been suitably amended making a separate Rule for alienation of land in respect of the lands granted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. The fact that the Rules were never changed and have continued to be in existence for nearly 40 years since the PTCL Act was enacted, by itself, indicates that it was never the intention of the legislature to impose an additional condition that the lands granted to SC/ST categories could never be sold, unless permission was obtained by the Government, by enacting Act No.1 of 1979.
72. To give an illustration, suppose a land is granted to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in the year 1990 i.e., 11 years after the PTCL Act was enacted, and it contained a condition that the land should not be alienated for the period of 15 years
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR as per the Rules framed under the Land Grant Rules, obviously, the grantee would only have the right to alienate the property after the year 2005. If the period of non- alienation was limited to 15 years, the provisions of PTCL Act cannot be understood to mean that there was an imposition of an additional condition that the granted land could not be alienated even after 15 years, unless permission had been secured from the Government. The permission contemplated under Section 4(2), as indicated above, was only a further safeguard to the already existing condition in the terms of the grant and not for securing permission when the period of non-alienation had expired.
73. In other words, not only was the permission of the highest officer of the district required, but the permission of the highest authority in the State was also required before the Deputy Commissioner could grant permission for the alienation which was proposed to be made within the period of non- alienation.
74. The anomaly that would be created--if an interpretation that permission under
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR Section 4(2) was necessary for all time to come and for all granted lands--will also have to be noticed here.
75. Suppose a land was granted in 1990 with the condition that the land should not be alienated after 15 years, then this land cannot even be sold in 2090 i.e., 100 years after the grant had been made. This would basically mean that the State, while granting the land, was enslaving the grantee forever and he would not be able to ever enjoy the benefits of the land unconditionally. Such an interpretation would defeat the objective of the grant being made to a poor, landless person belonging to the SC/ST category and would amount to forcing him to stay tied to the land forever. With the passage of time, the grantee, who had used the land to uplift himself, should also be at liberty to deal with the granted land and he should not be forced to be tied down to this land forever.
76. To summarize, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) would arise only if there was an existing bar for alienation. If there was no bar for alienating
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR the land, the question of seeking permission would never arise. Viewed from this context, the permission contemplated under Section 4(2) can only mean that it is only when a granted land is sought to be alienated within the specified period of non- alienation would it require the permission of the Government."
Emphasis supplied
15. In Mayur Sreeram specifically observed and held that a) permission is required only when the act sought to be done alienation would otherwise be illegal because a subsisting bar exists, b) if alienation is permissible under the grant terms or there is no bar at all (the question of seeking permission for a permissible act does not arise).
This reasoning applies with a greater force when the grant never carried a prohibition clause. In such circumstances, treating Section 4 (2) as creating a new restriction by itself would amount to imposing a condition not found in the grant, which is impermissible.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR
16. If Section 6 is looked into, the true meaning of Section 4 (2) would be the statute itself recognizes the documents can be accepted for registration when transfer is "in accordance with this Act or terms of the grant or the law providing for such grant". This internal indicator shows that the legislature did not intend to prohibit all transfers of all granted lands for all time. Hence, when the grant contains no prohibition, the transfer is not shown to be contrary to the grant terms or the grant law and Section 4 (2) cannot be invoked to nullify it.
17. Learned counsel for private respondents would submit that the Apex Court while interpreting Section 4 of the PTCL Act, has explained the operation of the three contingencies enumerated under Section 4(1). He would contend that even if there is no contravention of the terms of the grant and no contravention of the law prohibiting for such grant, a transfer effected after the commencement of the PTCL Act, without obtaining prior permission under Section 4 (2), would nonetheless be rendered null and void.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dharma Naika, learned counsel would submit that the Apex Court has held that non-compliance with Section 4 (2) itself is sufficient to invalidate transfer, irrespective of compliance with other two contingencies under Section 4(1).
18. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the factual foundation in Dharma Naika's case and the facts of the present case stand on an entirely different footing. In Dharma Naika's, the grant itself expressly contained a non-alienation clause of 15 years. The controversy before the Apex Court arose in the context of transfer affected after the expiry of the said non-alienation period but without obtaining prior permission under Section 4 (2). In that factual background, the Apex Court examined the scope of Section 4 (2).
19. In the present case, however, the grant order as stated supra does not prescribe any non-alienation clause
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR whatsoever. There is no prohibition on alienation principle either to the terms of the grant or to the law governing the grant. This factual aspect is undisputed. Therefore, the assumption that there existed a subsistence or spent out prohibition under the grant as was in the case of Dharma Naika is wholly absent in the present case.
20. Section 4 (2) cannot operate as a vacuum. Since Section 4 (1) of the PTCL Act renders a transfer void only when it is:
i. In contravention of the terms of the grant or ii. In contravention of the law providing for such grant or iii. In contravention of Sub-Section (2).
21. The third contingency under Section 4 (1) cannot be read as an independent and self-generating restriction detached from the grant regime. Section 4(2) presupposes condition in the grant restricting alienation or requiring prior
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254 WP No. 104840 of 2016 HC-KAR Government permission. In the absence of any such restriction in the original grant or governing rules, the question of seeking Government permission for an otherwise lawful transfer would not arise
22. This precise issue has been answered by this Court in Mayura Sreeram's case. The reliance placed on Dharma Naika's case is misplaced and not applicable to the present facts. In the present case, since grant did not contain any non alienation clause and there was no any contravention of the law of the grant or the law governing the grant invocation of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act is legally unsustainable. The impugned orders which proceed on the premise that the Government permission was mandatory despite absence of any grant prohibition suffers from clear error of law and are liable to be set aside and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2254
WP No. 104840 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure-A) and the Assistant Commissioner dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure-D) are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34