The Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, presided over by Justice R. Devdas, on September 26, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by 82-year-old Doddagiriyappachari. The dispute revolved around a decades-old sale of granted land in Khaji Sonnenahalli village, Bengaluru East Taluk, and whether subsequent transfers violated the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act).
Background
The case stretches back nearly seven decades. In 1956, land originally granted to a Scheduled Caste family was sold to a private party. Later, authorities annulled the sale and restored the land to the heirs of the grantee. In 2005, one of the heirs, Muninarayanappa, sought government permission to sell. Permission was indeed granted, but only for sale in favour of a specific buyer, respondent B.M. Ramesh.
However, instead of a direct sale, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed, which allowed Ramesh to sell the land onward. Within two days, he sold the property to the present petitioner. After Muninarayanappa's death, his heirs confirmed the sale in 2015. A fresh challenge was later brought by one of the heirs, Harisha, leading to annulment orders by both the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
Court's Observations
The High Court scrutinised whether the petitioner could rely on the 2005 government sanction. Justice Devdas noted that while permission was granted to sell, it was specific: the transferor and transferee were both named. Using a GPA to divert the sale to another party was found to be "in clear violation" of the sanction’s conditions.
The Court also remarked on the troubling trend of exploiting illiterate or vulnerable grantees through power of attorney devices. Referring to earlier rulings, the bench observed,
"execution of a general power of attorney granting powers to deal with and sell granted land is equally hit by the provisions of the Act."
On the petitioner's argument that delays in filing the challenge made the annulment invalid, the Court disagreed. It cited Supreme Court precedent holding that beneficial legislations like the PTCL Act are not bound by strict limitation periods. The bench pointed out that an 8-year delay in such cases does not automatically defeat restoration claims.
The judge further clarified that nothing in the PTCL Act prohibits heirs from invoking the Act multiple times if conditions are violated again.
"Sections 4 and 5 do not restrict invocation of the Act only once,"the order stressed.
Decision
After examining the chronology and the sanction conditions, the High Court concluded that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 (Ramesh) had acted contrary to law. The court upheld the annulment orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, dismissing the writ petition.
In its final words, Justice Devdas stated,
"For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition lacks merit. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
The ruling once again underscores the judiciary’s firm stance that granted lands under the PTCL Act cannot be traded away through indirect methods like GPAs or repeated sales, even decades after the original grant.
Case Title: Sri. Doddagiriyappachari vs The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14207 of 2025 (SC-ST)