Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. When the matter stood thus, the grantee, Muniyanaika made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of PTCL Act. It is the case of the subsequent purchasers that the grantee had sold 4 acres in Sy.No.66/2 to Ganga Naika, but before the Land Tribunal, the grantee alleged that what was in possession of the purchaser Ganga Naika was only 2 acres 37 guntas and therefore, the Land Tribunal confirmed occupancy rights to that extent only and in respect of the balance land, which according to Ganga Naika, had also been purchased by him from the grantee, no occupancy right was granted. The application filed by the grantee before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking restoration of the entire extent of 4 acres of land, which was sold by him. The said application was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2009. Against the said order, the grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, who by order dated 23.11.2010 allowed the appeal and held that the transactions were in contravention of the PTCL Act and directed the Assistant Commissioner to take possession of the lands by way of resumption. Thereafter, notice on 02.12.2011 was issued. It is the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the notices that were assailed in two separate writ petitions as detailed above. Both the writ petitions have been dismissed, thereby holding that the grantee is entitled to resumption and restoration of the entire extent of land. Hence, the appeals have been preferred.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant/purchaser is that when the occupancy right has been granted by the Land Tribunal, the same cannot be a subject matter arising under the PTCL Act. That, though initially the entire extent of land was sold by the grantee to the purchaser, Ganga Naika, in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the grantee falsely admitted that only 2 acres 37 guntas was sold, as a result, occupancy right was granted to the purchaser-Ganga Naika only to that extent and the balance land has remained with the grantee. Despite that the application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking resumption and restoration of the entire extent of land. It was, therefore, contended that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner was justified and that the Deputy Commissioner was not right in holding that the transactions were in contravention of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the said order has to be set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner may be given effect to. It was also contended that the issuance of notice by the Tahsildar seeking possession of the land is in contravention of the Rules indicated under the PTCL Act and therefore, the orders passed in the writ petitions call for intervention in these appeals.

whose earlier lease or transfer was contrary to Section 4 of the Act would not give exemption to such land from the applicability of the PTCL Act. Therefore, any order passed by the Land Tribunal in the instant case, has no effect in the light of Section 11 of the PTCL Act and having regard to the object and purpose of the said Act.

12. In the instant case, the sale made by the grantee to the purchaser-Ganga Naika is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said sale is in contravention of the PTCL Act. The application made by the purchaser for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, it appears was only to get over the provisions of the PTCL Act, and thereby prohibit the grantee from making any claim under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It is plausible that such an ingenious method of approaching the Land Tribunal was made to ensure that the grantee is prohibited from seeking relief under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The order of the Land Tribunal is, no doubt, prior to the orders passed under the PTCL Act. It is also plausible that the grantee was influenced to agree for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas. However, that has not deterred the grantee from seeking resumption and restoration of the entire extent of 4 acres of land under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in our view, the Assistant Commissioner was not right in rejecting the application made by the grantee by placing reliance on the grant of occupancy made by the Land Tribunal. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the sale made by the grantee was in contravention of the provisions of the Act insofar as the entire extent of 4 acres is concerned. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the filing of the application before the Land Tribunal after enforcement of the PTCL Act seeking grant of occupancy rights by the purchaser did not have the effect of the grantee seeking resumption and restoration of the land under the provisions of the PTCL Act. In fact, the stratagem adopted by the purchaser Ganga Naika in approaching the Land Tribunal after the enforcement of the PTCL Act is to be deprecated. Therefore, learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions by upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

13. In O.Dyamappa v. Appanna Bhovi and others (1997 (3) KLJ 683) in paragraph-15 of the judgment, the Division Bench has affirmed the view of a Single Bench in Siddoji Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Others (1983(1) Kar L.J. 478) to the effect that an order of the Land Tribunal stands overridden by the provisions of the PTCL Act. In the case of Siddoji Rao, a member of the scheduled caste was granted land with a stipulation that he should not alienate for 15 years but in violation of the same, he sold the land to a person who in turn leased the land to the petitioner therein. The said petitioner had obtained the occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act by establishing that he was a tenant as on 01.03.1974. The grantee, on the enforcement the PTCL Act made an application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption and restoration of the granted land on the ground that the alienation made by him was void, which application was allowed and restoration of possession was ordered. The said order was assailed by the tenant. In those circumstances, this Court held that, Sections 4 and 11 give a overriding effect to the PTCL Act and the order of the Land Tribunal not withstanding that, the Assistant Commissioner was right in declining the sale void and restored the possession to the grantee. The said position is squarely applicable to the present case.