Invoking Act Prohibiting Transfer Of SC/ST Land For Second Time To Restore Site Already Sold & Resumed Is Illegal: Karnataka High Court

Referring to division bench's order in Bhadre Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner (2012) where it was held that "action of a grantee, in once again (or repeatedly) selling the lands which are resumed in his favour, amounts to a crime", Justice N S Sanjay Gowda in his order held:

"It is therefore clear that this Court has clearly held that the act of a grantee in repeatedly selling the granted lands which had been resumed in his favour would be a criminal offence amounting to cheating. The provisions of a remedial statute cannot be utilized for perpetuating a crime".

The court perused Section 4 of the PTCL Act and said that it cannot be in doubt that an alienation made in contravention of the terms of the grant or under a transfer in violation of Section 4(2) would be null and void.

The court however said that Section 4 only contemplated that a transfer "made for the first time alone" was required to be annulled and it "did not contemplate subsequent alienations" made by a grantee after the lands were restored to his favour.

It further said:

"In fact, if the argument that the grantee, on getting the land resumed, can once again proceed to sell the lands without obtaining the permission of the Government is accepted, this would only mean that a literal interpretation would only lead to an anomalous situation where the provisions of the PTCL Act was capable of rampant abuse. Such an argument would also lead to an unjust situation where a grantee is being granted a benefit despite his illegal action. Thus, in this case, a literal interpretation of Section 4 would not be appropriate, and a purposive interpretation would be absolutely needed...In this view of the matter, the clear proposition of law that would emerge is that if a grantee or his legal heirs, on getting the lands resumed and restored in their favour, once again choose to sell the lands that are restored to them, then, they would not be entitled to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act for the second time and seek resumption and restoration of the lands". 

Taking note of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, the court said the legislature was concerned mainly with alienations made prior to the PTCL Act being enacted—in contravention of the terms of the grant, the manner in which they were to be declared as being void, and the manner in which they were required to be restored to the grantee who had lost the land.

It further observed that the legislature wanted to remedy a situation where the SC/ST grantees were exploited due to their ignorance and poverty and were deprived of the lands which had been granted to them by the State with the objective of uplifting them, both in economic terms and in social terms.

"In that sense, the PTCL Act can be considered as a remedial statute designed to remedy a wrong done in the past and a wrong which could be committed in the future," the court underscored.  

It said that the  Act was also brought in to strengthen the provisions which provided for cancellation of the grants when they had been made in contravention of the terms of the grant.

Referring to provisions of the Act, the bench said “The grantee, by invoking the provisions of the Act and getting back his land, is also clearly aware of the fact that the PTCL Act prohibits himself from alienating said land without securing the prior permission of the Government.”

Thus, “If a grantee seeks to disregard the prohibition contained in the remedial statute and essentially abuses it, he cannot obviously be given the benefit of the beneficial provisions of the Act. A grantee, while being entitled to the benefits of the Act, would also be bound by the restrictive clauses in the Act and is liable for the consequences of disregarding the provisions of the PTCL Act.”

The court further underscored that PTCL Act is not meant to grant a licence to grantees to sell the lands that were resumed in their favour and once again seek restoration.

The court said “A grantee cannot abuse a remedial statute to perpetuate an illegality and, at the same time, secure a process which legitimizes his illegal act repeatedly. The Act was designed to help the weak and downtrodden and not abuse their weakness in order to unjustly enrich themselves.”

The court thus rejected the petitioners contention that a literal interpretation of statutory provision would have to be adopted when the language of the provision was clear and unambiguous.

The court went on to dismiss the petition observing that proceedings initiated under the PTCL Act for resuming the lands which had been sold after they had been earlier resumed under the provisions of the PTCL Act would be illegal and without jurisdiction.

Background

In 1961,  land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Kenchammanahalli village of Gudal post, Davanagere District was granted by the Tahsildar to one Siddappa son of Badesiddappa with a condition that said land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years.

However, in 1970, Siddappa sold this land to one G. Kotrappa. He thereafter proceeded to sell said land to one K. G. Sharanappa son of Goudra Channappa. Ten years thereafter, in 1982, Siddappa—the grantee approached the Assistant Commissioner by filing an application for resumption which came to be allowed.

Siddappa, within a month of the resumption order, proceeded to alienate the land that was resumed in his favour once again, by executing a sale deed in 1985 in favour of Gowdra Shivappa and Tungamma.

The Tahsildar submitted a report in the year 2002 informing the Assistant Commissioner about the alienation, and the Assistant Commissioner thereafter proceeded to initiate proceedings for a second time under the PTCL Act for resumption which came to be allowed.

This order was challenged by Gowdra Shivappa—before the high court which remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to re-hear the matter on merits. The Commissioner directed resumption of land. In appeal the deputy commissioner allowed the appeal, principally, on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act.

Being aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to resume the land, the legal representatives of Siddappa, the grantee moved the high court. 

Case Title: Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others

Counsel for petitioners: Advocate G Balakrishna Shastry 

Counsel for R1-R4: AGA Savithramma

Counsel for R-5: Advocate Bhojaraja S V 

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29559 OF 2018