R DHANALAKSHMI Vs. SANDEEP KANGONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the view taken by the authorities is that the provisions of the KPTCL Act would not apply to the present transaction. He would submit that having regard to the fact that the site in question was allotted to the petitioner only on account of the fact that, she belonged to a Scheduled Caste, under a special quota, and since the KPTCL Act does not make a distinction between agricultural land and a building site, as laid down by this Court, the provisions of the KPTCL Act clearly stood attracted and the allotment in favour of the petitioner did require to be protected and therefore, the alienation ought to have been set aside even if it was for a consideration since the transaction was not preceded by a prior sanction of the State Government as required under the KPTCL Act. The added circumstance that the transaction has taken place when there was a prohibition under the Lease-cum-Sale agreement and since the wide definition applied to 'alienation' including an agreement of sale, the illegality is compounded and therefore, the transaction has to be set at naught. It is further contended that the narrow view sought to he taken by the authorities that since the site in question is not a grant or allotment of land under die Mysore Land Revenue Rules, 1960, of under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 etc., is not in accordance with the settled legal position and notwithstanding that the allotment is made by the BDA, which is constituted under a special statute, governed by other Rules, the petitioner is yet to be protected for otherwise, the very purpose and object of the Act would be defeated. The learned Counsel seeks to place reliance on the following judgments: