Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) SRI.SRINIVAS G AND OTHERS VS. SRI.
HARISH KUMAR AND OTHERS - ILR 2012 KAR
5) AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. TEJ BAHADUR PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS - (2004) 10 SCC 65
6) VIVEK M HINDUJA & OTHERS VS. M. ASHWATHA & OTHERS - CIVIL APPEAL
5. Per-contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 while justifying the orders contended that the sale made in favour of petitioner/appellant is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, as petitioner has not obtained prior permission from the Government as required under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the sale is null and void.

To substantiate the above contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 710.

Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that this Court vide order dated 30.8.2018 directed the officer to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act and report the same to this Court before the next date of hearing and accordingly, the matter was ordered to be posted on 18.09.2018. Accordingly, a memo was filed on 17.09.2018 stating that in pursuance of the interim direction issued by this Court on 30.08.2018, the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Koppal had conducted proceedings in No. PTCL/1.2.5.6/2009-10 and had arrived at a conclusion on 12.9.2018 that the alienation in favour of petitioner/ appellant is in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act and therefore, passed an interim order for mutating the name of the Government in respect of the land in question.

Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. submitted that the sale in favour of petitioner/appellant is in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 being the legal representative of the original grantee had initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act before the competent authority to declare that the sale in favour of the petitioner/appellant is null and void and had sought for restoration of the land in question in his favour.

9. In the instant case, respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 4 r/w Section 5 of the PTCL Act for cancellation of the sale deed, resumption and restitution of the land in question stating that the land in question was granted to one Shankar, son of Krishna Lamani on 09.02.1982 and he has transferred the granted land to petitioner/appellant on 22.01.1999 under a registered sale deed.

It is noticed that the original grantee has not taken previous permission from the Government before he could alienate the property in question in favour of petitioner/appellant. Thus, there is violation of the provisions of Sections 4 (1) and (2) of the PTCL Act.