The Karnataka High Court has held that if land granted to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act), has already been resumed and restored once, a second attempt to invoke the same Act after reselling the land is not permissible.

Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, while dismissing the writ petition in Rudramma & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others (W.P. No. 29559/2018), clarified that the remedial nature of the PTCL Act cannot be misused for repeated benefits. The Court observed:

Read Also:-Madras High Court Initiates Suo Motu Proceedings Against Minister Ponmudi Over Remarks on Saivism, Vaishnavism, and Women

“If a grantee or his legal heirs, on getting the lands resumed and restored in their favour, once again choose to sell the lands that are restored to them, then, they would not be entitled to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act for the second time and seek resumption and restoration of the lands.”

In this case, the land in question, measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas in Kenchammanahalli village of Davanagere district, was originally granted to one Siddappa in 1961 with a condition that it must not be sold for fifteen years. Despite this, Siddappa sold the land in 1970 and then again in 1972. After invoking the PTCL Act, the Assistant Commissioner allowed resumption in 1984 and the land was restored to Siddappa.

However, Siddappa sold the resumed land again in 1985. When the Assistant Commissioner resumed the land a second time in 2002, the Deputy Commissioner later reversed it citing inordinate delay. The legal heirs of Siddappa challenged this in the High Court.

The Court highlighted that allowing such repeated use of the PTCL Act would defeat its purpose:

“A grantee cannot abuse a remedial statute to perpetuate an illegality and, at the same time, secure a process which legitimizes his illegal act repeatedly. The Act was designed to help the weak and downtrodden and not abuse their weakness in order to unjustly enrich themselves.”

Read Also:-FIR Must Be Registered Against Unauthorized Subletting: DGP Tells Madras High Court

Justice Gowda referred to earlier decisions, including Bhadre Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner (2012), where it was held that repeated alienation of restored lands amounts to cheating:

The act of a grantee in repeatedly selling the granted lands which had been resumed in his favour would be a criminal offence amounting to cheating. The provisions of a remedial statute cannot be utilized for perpetuating a crime.

The Court also rejected the petitioners' argument for a literal reading of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, explaining that the section only contemplates nullification of the first alienation and not subsequent ones. The judgment emphasized a purposive interpretation to prevent misuse:

If the argument that the grantee, on getting the land resumed, can once again proceed to sell the lands without obtaining the permission of the Government is accepted, this would only mean that a literal interpretation would lead to an anomalous situation… A purposive interpretation would be absolutely needed.

Justice Gowda concluded that the second resumption attempt was legally untenable:

Read Also:-Madras High Court Explores SOP for Supporting Children Traumatized by Witnessing Crimes

“The proceedings initiated under the PTCL Act for resuming the lands which had been sold after they had been earlier resumed under the provisions of the PTCL Act would be illegal and without jurisdiction.”

Thus, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that remedial laws cannot be misused to repeatedly benefit from one’s own illegal acts.

Case Title: Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others

Counsel for petitioners: Advocate G Balakrishna Shastry

Counsel for R1-R4: AGA Savithramma

Counsel for R-5: Advocate Bhojaraja S V

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29559 OF 2018