Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of the appeal filed before him, came to the conclusion that the alienation made in favour of Ravi Agarwal could not be the subject matter of a proceeding under the PTCL Act since the Government had accorded permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. He accordingly proceeded to allow the appeal.

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:53045

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC:53045 Civil Court was correct and since the Trial Court executed the sale deed on the basis of the permission that had been accorded by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner could assume jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under the PTCL Act for resumption. Consequently, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the alienation made in favour of the son of Suresh Chandra Gupta could not come within the purview of the PTCL Act and he has rightly dismissed the proceedings that had been initiated by Annayappa for resumption.

- 30 -

NC: 2024:KHC:53045 and accords permission, the agreement of sale would stand ratified by the Government and the subsequent execution of the sale deed by the grantee in favour of a purchaser can never attract the provisions of the PTCL Act.

42. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The sale in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was the cause for Annayappa to approach the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act for resumption. The proceedings against T. R. Sathish Hegde would be without jurisdiction, as already stated above, since there was permission to alienate the land as per the endorsement dated 01.02.2007 executed by the Tahsildar. If Suresh Chandra Gupta had approached the Civil Court seeking to enforce an agreement of sale in his favour and in the said suit, T. R. Sathish Hegde and the grantee were parties -- where the Civil Court ultimately proceeded to decree the suit in favour of

- 31 -

NC: 2024:KHC:53045 Suresh Chandra Gupta and also held that the sale deed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was not binding on Suresh Chandra Gupta -- it is obvious that the sale in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde would actually enure to the benefit of T. R. Sathish Hegde.

43. It is to be noticed here that if it is the case of the grantees that the permission of the Government dated 01.02.2007 was not specific to any person, the alienation made in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde would be valid and consequently, the decree passed in the Civil Court, to which T. R. Sathish Hegde was a party, would also bring the granted land outside the purview of the PTCL Act. Thus, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the alienation made in favour of the petitioner herein on the basis of the decree of the Civil Court can be illegal, since it was based on the permission accorded by the Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.