Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Succinctly stated, the lands in question had been allotted by the Government to persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (earlier compendiously termed as the 'depressed classes') on Grants which contained covenants prohibiting the transfer or alienation of suc h land in perpetuity or for a term of years. The Honble Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the PTCL Act and instead has lauded its objects namely, the alleviat ion of the plight of the Depressed sections of our society. Section 3(b) contains an encompassing definition of the term "gr anted lands". Section 4 contains the prohibition of transfer of thes e granted lands on any contravention of the terms of the Grant or the law providing for such Grant and further requires that permission from the Government be obtained before alienati on/transfer of any granted lands. Section 5 firstly empowers the Assistant Commissioner with suo motu powers to take possess ion of granted lands on his satisfaction that the transfer is null and void under Section 4, and thereafter empowers this Authority to restore the land to the original grantee or his legal heirs in certain circumstances or to other of the Scheduled Caste and Sch eduled Tribe community. No period of limitation to initiate such pro ceedings has been stipulated in the statute. Section 5(A) was introduced in 1984 and provides for an appeal to the Deputy Commis sioner, to be filed within three months, but condonation of delay can be ordered. Sub Section (3) of Section 5 creates a fiction that whe re any granted land is in the possession of a person other than the original grantee, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is pro ved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void, as envisaged under the provisions of sub-sectio n (1) of Section 4. Section 11 prescribes that the provisions of the PTCL Act shall override all other laws. Since these provisions of the PTCL Act pervade our entire consideration, they are reproduce d for ease of reference:

ii) The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. While it is arguable that the transactions which occurred prior thereto and which did not offend any of the terms of the grant were beyond the purview of the said statute, the transfers after 01.01.1979 must conform to Section 4(23 of the PTCL Act which mandates the obtainment of the Government's prior permission for transfer of any granted land. In the case in hand, the Sale Deeds are dated 28.11.1984, 30.08.1988 and 17.12.1994 and facially violate Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, and are consequently null and void. The Appellant should have applied for permission from the Government under Section 4(2), since it is beyond dispute that it was purchasing granted land under any of the sub rules of Rule-43. The arguments which have been addressed before us would then have been proffer ed before the Government and answered by it. Having failed to apply for permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act; as was the statutory requirement, the Appellant is precluded from advanc ing these arguments before any of the authorities or Court below. The Appeal deserves dismissal on this short/primary ground alone.

He further held that since the sale took place subsequent to the PTCL Act coming into force on 01.01.1979, it was void by oper ation of the statute. Accordingly, as per Section 5(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, the Assistant Commissioner ordered restoration of these lands to the applicant being the legal heir of the original gran tee. In appeal the Deputy Commissioner was not persuaded that the subject land does not fall within the meaning of 'gran ted land' as defined in Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act; that the revenue records for the year 1970-71 recorded that they had been obtained "through purchase". Reliance was placed on 1991 (2) Kar.L.J 449, 2001 KCCR 104 and 2003 (3) Kar.L.J 158 rend ered by a single Judge of this Court, which, however, failed to persu ade the Deputy Commissioner to accept the Appeal. The finding that the grant prohibited alienation for a period of 10 year s and 20 years respectively was confirmed. These finding of facts are final and in any event copies of the grant certificates were filed in the writ Court by the respondent and testifies to this position. In the impugned order the writ Court found no reason whatsoever to disturb the finding of facts recorded by the authorities.

ii) We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants who has however failed to persuade us to take a view contrary to the three forums below. We may reiterate that the Supreme Court has clarified in Dharma Naika that the provisions of the PTCL Act apply even in those cases where granted lands have been sold even after the expiry of the non-alienation period after the enforcement of the Act. In this case, the sale in favour of the Appellant was executed on 12.08.1993 much after coming into force of the PTCL Act. The Appellant ought to have obtained prior permission of the Government for the transfer by virtue of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Paragraph- 19 of the said Judgment which completely demolishes the argument proffered on behalf of the Appellant which reads thus: