G.M. VENKATAREDDY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question which arises in all these appeals is whether the decisions declaring the sale transaction in favour of the Appellants violates the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act ' for the sake of brevity). While we deal with the specific facts and contentions of each case later, at the outset, we preface this judgment with the legal framework within which the aforesaid question arises.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the lands in question had been allotted by the Government to persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (earlier compendiously termed as the 'depressed classes ') on Grants which contained covenants prohibiting the transfer or alienation of such land in perpetuity or for a term of years. The Honourable Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the PTCL Act and instead has lauded its objects namely, the alleviation of the plight of the Depressed sections of our society. Section 3(b) contains an encompassing definition of the term "granted lands ". Section 4 contains the prohibition of transfer of these granted lands on any contravention of the terms of the Grant or the law providing for such Grant and further requires that permission from the Government be obtained before alienation/transfer of any granted lands. Section 5 firstly empowers the Assistant Commissioner with suo motu powers to take possession of granted lands on his satisfaction that the transfer is null and void under Section 4, and thereafter empowers this Authority to restore the land to the original grantee or his legal heirs in certain circumstances or to other of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe community. No period of limitation to initiate such proceedings has been stipulated in the statute. Section 5(A) was introduced in 1984 and provides for an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, to be filed within three months, but condonation of delay can be ordered. Sub Section (3) of Section 5 creates a fiction that where any granted land is in the possession of a person other than the original grantee, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void, as envisaged under the provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 4. Section 11 prescribes that the provisions of the PTCL Act shall override all other laws. Since these provisions of the PTCL Act pervade our entire consideration, they are reproduced for ease of reference:

(3.) Resumption and restitution of granted lands -(1) Where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo moto, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub -section (1) of Section 4, he may - (a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. (1 -A) After an enquiry referred to in sub -section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly. (2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5 -A, any order passed under sub -sections (1) and (1 -A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. (3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 4. "11. Act to override other Laws: The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority. SYNOPSIS: 1. Overriding Effect of the Act: The Act has the overriding effect over the other laws. As a result the Assistant Commissioner will not be bound to consider the effect of an order made by the Land Tribunal, registering a person as occupant of the land, if the lease has been obtained contrary to the terms of grant. In Siddoji Rao - Vs - State of Karnataka and others (1983(1) Kar. LJ 478), the facts were as follows: Respondent No. 3 was a member of Scheduled Caste. The land had been granted to him with a condition that he shall not alienate the same within a period of 15 years. He sold the granted land within the said period to on Doddahalappa, some time in the year 1973. Doddahalapa leased the land to the Petitioner Siddoji Rao. Petitioner filed application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal and obtained an order of confirmation of occupancy rights from the Land Tribunal. Respondent No. 3 moved the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of possession of the land under Section 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court. The High Court held that the Act had overriding effect over all other laws, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was not bound by the order of the Land Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner is bound to give effect to the Act by declaring the transaction as void. Section 11 : Dyamappa - Vs - State ILR 1993 Kar, 1984 it was held that the Act would prevail over any other law or enactment. Therefore the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act were inapplicable where the transaction in question attracted the provisions of the Act. "