Granted Land Can’t Be Restored Twice Under PTCL Act: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has recently passed a significant judgment regarding the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act). The court has ruled that if a grantee or his/her legal heirs alienate the granted land a second time subsequent to its restoration or resumption, the PTCL Act cannot be invoked for resumption or restoration of the said lands.
This judgment has far-reaching implications for landowners and authorities in Karnataka, especially in the context of the PTCL Act, which was enacted to protect the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) in the state. The Act prohibits the transfer of certain lands owned by SC/STs to non-SC/STs, with some exceptions.
The controversy surrounding the PTCL Act arose when a grantee or his/her legal heirs sold or transferred the granted land a second time, despite it being restored or resumed earlier. The authorities sought to invoke the PTCL Act to resume or restore the lands, citing the Act’s provisions. However, the Karnataka High Court has now put a stop to this practice.
In its judgment, the court held that once a grantee or his/her legal heirs alienate the granted land a second time, the PTCL Act cannot be invoked to resume or restore the land. This means that the authorities cannot take back the land from the new buyer or occupant, even if they are not SC/STs.
The court’s reasoning behind this judgment is that the PTCL Act is designed to protect the rights of SC/STs, and not to deprive non-SC/STs of their rightful ownership or possession of land. The court held that allowing the authorities to resume or restore the land a second time would be violative of the principle of equality and would create uncertainty and instability in land ownership.
This judgment is significant not only for SC/STs but also for non-SC/STs who have purchased or occupied land that was earlier granted to SC/STs. It sets a clear precedent that once a land is restored or resumed under the PTCL Act, it cannot be resumed or restored again if it is alienated a second time.
The court’s decision is also in line with the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments on similar issues. In the case of Union of India vs. State of Kamataka, the Supreme Court held that the PTCL Act is not intended to deprive non-SC/STs of their rights over land, but rather to protect the rights of SC/STs.
The judgment has implications for landowners, authorities, and courts in Karnataka. It underscores the importance of clarity and precision in drafting legislation and the need for courts to interpret laws in a way that is fair and just.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s recent judgment is a significant development in the context of the PTCL Act. It clarifies that granted land cannot be restored twice under the Act and sets a clear precedent for future cases. The judgment is a victory for landowners and a reminder of the importance of upholding the principles of equality and justice in the administration of land laws.
