The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an 82-year-old petitioner’s plea challenging government orders that annulled his land purchase in Bengaluru East. Justice R. Devdas, delivering the judgment on September 26, 2025, upheld the authorities’ view that the transaction violated the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act).
Background
The dispute traces back to land in Khaji Sonnenahalli village, originally granted to a Scheduled Caste family in 1956. The grantee’s heirs later sold the property to one Smt. Basamma, but the sale was annulled in earlier proceedings under the PTCL Act. The land was then restored to the grantee’s legal heirs.
In 2005, one of the heirs, Muninarayanappa, obtained government permission to sell the land to a buyer named B.M. Ramesh. However, instead of executing a direct sale, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was issued, through which Ramesh later sold the land to the present petitioner, Sri Doddagiriyappachari, in 2006. Years later, Muninarayanappa’s son, Harisha, approached the Assistant Commissioner alleging violation of the PTCL Act and sought restoration.
The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner both sided with Harisha, declaring the 2006 sale void and ordering the land’s resumption.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the sale had prior government sanction and that the restoration plea was filed after an unreasonable delay of 18 years. He cited Supreme Court precedents that required “reasonable time” for such petitions.
However, the bench took a firm stance on the misuse of Power of Attorney in SC/ST land sales. Referring to an earlier ruling in A.K. Chikkaveerappa v. Assistant Commissioner (2022), the Court reiterated that “granting powers to sell land through a Power of Attorney is equally hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act.
Justice Devdas noted, “The very purpose of the Act is to prevent exploitation of poor and illiterate grantees. Allowing Power of Attorney transactions would defeat this intent.” The Court added that permission granted by the government is specific to the named seller and buyer; any deviation renders the sale invalid.
The bench also observed that the petitioner failed to prove that sale proceeds were ever paid to the original grantee or his family, as mandated by the permission order.
“The documents do not show any consideration reaching the grantee. Hence, the conditions of permission stand violated,” Justice Devdas said.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner (2020), the Court held that even a delay of eight years in filing a restoration plea cannot defeat the purpose of beneficial legislation meant for Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
Decision
Concluding that both the petitioner and his intermediary seller violated statutory conditions, the Court upheld the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. It ruled that the land transfer was null and void under the PTCL Act and directed that the restoration to the legal heirs of the original grantee would stand.
“The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Devdas declared, effectively closing the case in favour of the SC-ST heirs.
Case: Sri Doddagiriyappachari vs The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14207 of 2025 (SC-ST)
Date of Judgment: 26 September 2025