Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the interregnum, permission was obtained as contemplated under Section-4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for brevity) for conveying the property.
Respondent No.4 in turn sold the property in favour of respondent No.6 herein by executing a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2004.

4. Original grantee - mother of Sri.Venkataswamy - respondent No.4 in the writ petition, filed an application, under Section-4 of PTCL Act, before the Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, in the year 2005. The said application was registered as KSC/SC/2005-2006. The respondent No.6 herein was not made as a party and he got impleaded as a party - respondent No.4 before respondent No.2. On contest, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 25.02.2007 rejected the petition filed by the mother of Sri.Venkataswamy (father of the appellants herein). During the pendency of the proceedings before respondent No.2, original grantee Smt.ChikkaVenkatamma expired and the father of the appellants herein Sri.Venkataswamy was brought on record as legal representative. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2

8. We have heard Sri.K.R.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for appellants, Smt.Savitha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced, pleadings submitted, documents on record and the judgments relied.

9. The main limb of argument as advanced by the learned counsel for appellants is, the sale deed was presented on 16.11.1996. The contents of the sale deed shows, that there was passing of consideration and transfer of ownership, title and interest in the property. Though the registration of the document has taken place on 15.06.1998, after obtaining the permission, but as on the date of the execution of the document in the year 1996, there was no permission as contemplated under Section-4(2) of PTCL Act and the sale deed is void ab-initio and hit by Section-47 of the Indian Registration Act 1908. He further asserts that as per Section-47 of the Registration Act 1908, it is the time of the execution of document is to be taken into consideration and not the time of registration, to give effect to the document. Admittedly, though the sale deed was registered in 1998, but it was executed in 1996, hence as per Section-47 of the Registration Act, the time of execution of the document being 1996, the sale deed is hit by operation of Section-4(2) of PTCL Act, read with Section-47 of the Registration Act, as the sale deed relates back to the date of presentation and execution but not the date of registration.

16. Section-47 of Indian Registration Act, reads as follows:

"47. Time from which registered document operates.--A registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration."

17. Section-4(1) of PTCL Act imposes an absolute bar on transfer of any land within the prohibited period contained in the grant order. Section-4(2) of PTCL Act, however creates an exception, though it starts with a negative word 'no person shall' but postulates that any land granted may be transferred with a valid previous permission obtained from the Government. It is no doubt clear that as per sub-section-2 of Section-4 of PTCL Act, lifting of prohibition is not automatic after the period of prohibition imposed while granting the land ends, but requires a previous permission to transfer the land granted by way of a reasoned order in terms of the Provisions enumerated especially under Rule-9 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, after thoughtful deliberations at the Government end.

24. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants so far as Section-4(2) and Section-6 of PTCL and Section-47 of Registration Act.

25. Now comes the point of time within which the grantee or the descendants of grantee claim under him/her could invoke the provisions of the Act, to seek an order in their favour. There is no time limit prescribed under the Act, however the proceedings should be invoked under the provisions of PTCL Act, within a reasonable time. What is reasonable time is not defined anywhere, but it is depending on the facts of each case. In this case, the proceedings under the provisions of PTCL Act, has been invoked by the Original Grantee, Late Smt.Chikkavenkatamma @ Venkatamma, after delay of more than 7 years. Sri.K.R.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel took an exception to the reasons of the learned Single Judge, for quashing the order of respondent No.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner on the ground of delay in initiating the proceedings, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningappa's case referred supra, on the premise that, the delay in initiating the proceedings under the Provisions of the Act in the said case was 15 years, as contended at paragraph No.15 in grounds of the appeal. At first blush, it appeared to us as attractive, but for their conduct, the appellants are disentitled to seek the remedy on this count also.