PTCL Act curbs won't apply to regularised land: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has said that the regularisation of an unauthorised occupation of a land, even in favour of a person belonging to the SC/ST, would not make it a ‘granted land’ as defined under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act known as PTCL Act.

The Court further said no proceedings can be initiated for resuming and for restitution under the provisions of the PTCL Act when land is regularized under the Karnataka Land Revenue (KLR) Act.

The petition was filed by Kumari, a resident of Kallapura village, Bhadravathi taluk of Shivamogga district, challenging the order of resumption and restoration of land which she had acquired through a registered will executed by one Goniyappa.

On December 26, 2002, the Committee for regularising unauthorised occupation regularized the possession of Goniyappa, belonging to scheduled caste category, for the land measuring 1.20 acre in Bhadravathi taluk. On August 31, 2009, Goniyappa had bequeathed the property in favour of Kumari, who was not related to him.

Goniyappa’s son Rangappa questioned this will in a civil suit which ended in a compromise with Rangappa conceding that his father had executed a will. Subsequently, Rangappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the PTCL Act seeking resumption and restoration of land granted to his father. On November 14, 2022, the Deputy Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner restoring the land.

In her petition before the high court, Kumari contended that the land in question cannot be considered as a granted land as defined under the PTCL Act since it was not granted to Goniyappa because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste, but granted to him because he was in unauthorised occupation. On the other hand, Rangappa claimed that regularisation of an unauthorised occupation is also a grant and the moment an order of regularisation is passed in favour of a person belonging to the SC/ST, the land would come within the purview of the definition of a granted land under the PTCL Act. 

Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said that a land granted to a person by virtue of a recommendation made by the Committee constituted under Section 94A of the KLR Act is not a granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act.

“It is therefore clear that in cases of lands granted by virtue of an order regularising unauthorised occupation, it is not the Government which grants the land and consequently, just as in the case of lands granted under the Land Reforms Act, the land so granted would fall outside the purview of granted land as defined under the PTCL Act and consequently, the provisions of said PTCL Act cannot be invoked to resume the land when alienated in contravention of the terms of the grant,” the court said.

The court further said, “It is held that the proceeding for resumption initiated by Rangappa on the premise that the land in question was a granted land is held to be totally without jurisdiction and they are quashed.”