Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act. Conversion and sale of granted land by original grantee after prohibition period. Conversion amounts to deemed permission. Sale is valid. Karnataka High Court.

Kumar and others vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 21977/2013 and connected matters decided on 21 December 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357735/1/WP21977-13-21-12-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: 17 & 18. Immediately, after the condition of the non-alienation was over, the original grantee applies for conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes in the year 1994. The competent authority granted conversion of the land by his order dated 27.05.1994, thus, from 27.05.1994, character of the land being agriculture was changed to being non-agriculture and this act of getting the land converted is by the original grantee himself. The original grantee then sold the land to respondent No.10 – T. Suresh Gowda on 07.04.2004 to respondent No.10.

24. Judgment in THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN’S VILLAGE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS in W.P.No.15802/2007 dated 07.04.2019 referred to as follows:

“3. Since the competent authorities under the Act have taken a divergent view of the matter, this Court will have to take note of both the orders and arrive at a conclusion as to the consideration as made therein. Insofar as the fact that the property in question was granted through Darkhast order dated 17.02.1978 is the undisputed position. The Saguvali Chit was issued on 31.05.1978 with a condition that the property shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The grantee himself after the non-alienation period of 15 years had filed an application seeking conversion of the land for residential purpose and the same was approved by the order dated 27.05.1994. It is subsequent thereto the sale has been made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner on 04.06.1994 and the petitioner has thereafter purchased on 25.06.1994. In the present circumstance what is necessary to be noticed is that the grant as made initially was for the agricultural purpose and at the point when the violation of the provisions of the Act would be alleged, the power provided under the Act is also to set aside such transaction, forfeit the land and restore it to the grantee. The object being that the purpose of the grant should be achieved inasmuch as the persons belonging to the lower strata of society who are granted such land to carry out the avocation, the protection should also be available so that the transactions which are made contrary to the provisions of the Act is to be set aside so that the purpose of the grant would be achieved in such manner.

4. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view and the instant facts are perused, the grantee himself had given up the use of land for agricultural purpose and had applied for grant of conversion of the land after the embargo on alienation for 15 years had lapsed. In the process of granting the conversion order, the competent authorities were required to take note of these aspects of the matter and in that light when the conversion of the land is granted, the permission of alienating the property is deemed to have been granted. In such circumstances, whereupon the converted land is alienated violation of the provision of the Act would not arise. Therefore the consideration as made by the Assistant Commissioner in the present facts and circumstance relating to the conversion order being granted on 27.05.1994 and the sale having taken place subsequent thereto on 04.06.1994 would indicate that the sale was after such period and the violation as contemplated under the Act had not occurred.

5. If the consideration as made by the Assistant Commissioner is kept in view and the reason assigned by the Deputy Commissioner is taken into consideration, the reason would not justify the action inasmuch as the land had been converted. Even though as observed by the Deputy Commissioner the provision contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Act do not refer to these aspects of the matter, as already noticed the conversion was made after the embargo on alienation had ceased and thereafter the property had been sold and as such the fact situation is not the normal circumstance.

25. This order of the Co-ordinate Bench is approved by the Division Bench. Therefore, in the light of the finding of this Court that once the land was converted by an act of the original grantee himself, it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner to resume the land in favour of the original grantee.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal