1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

W.P.No.60483 OF *2016 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.MUNNAIAH
S/O LATE LACHAPPA
AGE : 48 YEARS

2. SRI.ESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE GUNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS

3. SMT.MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAMMA
AGE : 63 YEARS

4. SMT.MUNIYAMMA
D/O SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
W/O SRI.NAGRAJ
AGE: 38 YEARS

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE

R/AT:MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

* Corrected vide chambers

Order dated 19.07.2021
 2

5. SMT.KALAVATHI
D/O SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
W/O SRI.AVALAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.301, GEDDALAHALLI
RMV 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE -560 094.

6. SMT.NARAYANAMMA
D/O SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
W/O SRI.NARAYANA MURTHY
AGE:34 YEARS
R/AT MALLUR VILLAGE
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI
SHIDLIGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

7. SRI.MUNIKRISHNA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGE 32 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

8. SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA
D/O LAT MUNIVENKATAPPA
W/O SRI.VENKATESH
AGE: 34 YEARS
R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
BOODHIGERE POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

9. SRI.MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGE 33YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

10. SRI.RAMESH
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGE 23EARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.
 3

11. SMT.PAVITRA
DO LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGE 24EARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

12. SMT.AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE KONDAPPA
W/O LATE NAGAPPA
AGE : 78 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

13. SMT.GUNNAMMA
D/O LATE KONDAPPA
W/O LATE NAGAPPA
AGE : 75EARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

… PETITIONERS
(BY MR.D.R.RAVISHANKAR ADV. FOR
MR.RAVINDRA PRASAD B ADV.)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE - 560 035.

3. SRI.BIMAL KUMAR GOENKA

S/O LATE RADHE MOHANA GOENKA
AGE 53 YEARS
PARTNER OF M/S HAMLET CAMP WEL
 4

HOUSE NO.11, TUMKUR ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 002.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI AGA FOR R1 & R2
MR.MANMOHAN P.N. ADV. FOR R3
MR.VISHWANATH R. HEGDE ADV. FOR R4 TO R10.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN PETITION K.SC.ST (S) NO.90/2007-08 ON THE FILE
OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE (R-2) AND PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE R-1.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The reference to this bench emanates from order

dated 19.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge.

The factual backdrop in which the reference has been

made to this Bench needs mention.

2. The petitioners are the persons belonging to

the schedule caste and lineal descendants of Late Konda

alias Kondappa, namely father of petitioner Nos.13 and

14 and grandfather of remaining respondents. Aforesaid

Late Konda was granted land bearing Survey No.45

measuring 5 acres and 3 guntas situate at Village

Meenukunte, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, vide

 5

Government Order dated 31.12.1927. The order of

grant contained a condition with regard to non-

alienation of land. On death of aforesaid Shri Konda, the

land devolved on the petitioners. The respondent No.3

purchased the lands in question vide five registered sale

deeds dated 31.10.1996 from the petitioners without

obtaining prior permission from the Government under

Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’).

3. The petitioner No.1 filed an application

before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act for restoration of the land. The Assistant

Commissioner by an order dated 10.06.2008 held the

sale deeds executed in favour of respondent No.3 as

null and void and directed restoration of land in favour

of the petitioners. The respondent No.3 thereupon filed

an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against

order dated 10.06.2008, the Deputy Commissioner by

 6

an order dated 04.08.2010 inter alia held that the order

of grant does not carry any restriction of alienation and

the land in question was granted to predecessor of the

petitioners, accordingly the appeal was allowed. The

petitioner No.1 challenged the aforesaid order in a writ

petition, which was decided by an order dated

28.01.2013 and the matter was remitted to the

Assistant Commissioner for decision afresh as the

nature of grant, date of grant and conditions of grant

are to be verified. The Assistant Commissioner

thereafter, by an order dated 06.04.2015 dismissed the

application for restoration submitted by the petitioners.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy

Commissioner who by an order dated 07.10.2016

dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid orders are

challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

4. The learned single judge by an order dated

19.05.2021 noticed the following decisions:

 7

(i) Kariyappa @ Kariyappa Vs. The

A.C., Hassan, ILR 1997 Kar 1723;

(ii) Smt.Muniakkayyamma Vs. The

Assistant Commissioner, 2005 (4) KCCR
2953.

(iii) The Tibetan Children’s Village

Vs. Deputy Commissioners and others,
W.P. No. 15802/2007 dated 07.04.2019.

(iv) Sri.Kumar and others Vs. State

of Karnataka and Ors, in W.P. No.
21977/2013 decided on 21.12.2020.

(v) Smt.Ningamma Vs. The Tibetan

Children’s Village, W.A. No. 4092/2017
dated 09.04.2019.

It was held that divergent views have been taken

and the matter was referred for consideration by a

larger bench.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while

inviting the attention of this court to Section 95(2) of

the Act and Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act submitted that

both the aforesaid provision operate in different fields

 8

and the parameters for consideration of applications

under both the provisions are different. It is further

submitted that designated authorities under both

provisions are different and therefore, the permission

granted by the Deputy Commissioner under Section

95(2) of the Act cannot be construed as permission

granted by the Government under Section 4(2) of the

PTCL Act. It is also submitted that Section 4 of the PTCL

Act begins with a non obstante clause and therefore, full

effect has to be given to the provisions contained in

Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. It is urged that Section

4(1) of PTCL Act cannot be construed in the manner

which defeats the object of Section 95(2) of the Act and

vice versa. It is also urged that origin of the land alone

is the criteria. It is contended that if on interpretation of

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which is a social welfare

legislation, the interpretation, which leans in favour of

the object of the Act has to be preferred. It is therefore,

submitted that order of conversion passed under

Section 95(2) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner

 9

would not take away the "granted land" from the

purview of the PTCL Act. It is also urged that what

cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly and it

is not permissible to create a legal fiction by

interpretation. It is also urged that definition of the

expression "granted land" under Section 3(i)(b) of PTCL

Act is exhausted and therefore, the expression 'granted

land' cannot be construed to mean only agricultural

lands. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has

been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in 'STATE

OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS VS.

K.SHYAMSUNDAR AND OTHERS', (2011) 8 SCC 737

and 'BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND

ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS',

(2017) 5 SCC 598.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate

submitted that PTCL Act is a special law which prevails

over the general law viz., the Act. It is further submitted

that even if the land is converted under Section 95(2) of

 10

the Act, the same continues to be 'granted land' for the

purposes of PTCL Act and the rights conferred under the

special enactment cannot be taken away. It is also

urged that granted land does not lose its character, as

granted land merely because a permission for diversion

of the land under Section 95(2) of the Act is granted. It

is also contended that the permission granted under

Section 95(2) of the Act cannot be construed as

permission granted by the Government under Section

4(2) of the PTCL Act and the expression 'granted land' is

not restricted only to agricultural land.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No.3 submitted that PTCL Act is a law

relating to agrarian reforms. When the grantee under

the PTCL Act himself makes an application for

conversion of the land, the Deputy Commissioner

decides the aforesaid application with reference to the

guidelines prescribed in Circular dated 07.06.1999 and

the Deputy Commissioner while granting the permission

 11

for diversion of the land ensures that there is no

violation of Section 4 of PTCL Act. Therefore, the

permission granted under Section 95(2) of the Act has

to be construed as permission under Section 4(2) of

PTCL Act. It is pointed out that Section 95(2) of the Act

provides for rejection of application for conversion if the

same is likely to defeat the provisions of any law and

while passing the order of conversion, the Deputy

Commissioner is required to take into account the

various provisions of law including Section 4 of the PTCL

Act and therefore, by reference to de facto doctrine, it is

urged that order of conversion shall be deemed to be

order of prior permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL

Act. It is further submitted that such an interpretation is

in public interest and would safeguard the innocent

purchasers. It is also urged that definition of the word

'granted land' under the PTCL Act is restricted only to

agricultural lands and not to converted lands and the

definition has to be read in the light of doctrine of

Noscitur a sociis. It is also contended that once an order

 12

of conversion is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it

takes away the "granted land" from the purview of PTCL

Act. It is also urged that there is no divergence of

opinion with reference to the issues, which has been

referred by the learned Single Judge for consideration of

this bench. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance

has been placed on decisions in 'GOKARAJU

RANGARAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH', (1981)

3 SCC 132, 'MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH

SCIENCES VS. SATCHIKITSAPRASARAK MANDAL',

(2010) 3 SCC 786 and in 'N.NANJAPPA VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (2011) 4 KCCR 2502.

8. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. In Kariyappa’s case, learned single judge of

this court held that the PTCL Act does not make any

distinction between an agricultural or non agricultural

land or a house site. In Smt.Muniakkayyamma,

supra, it was held that change of user of land from

agricultural to non-agricultural land does not alter the

 13

nature of the land as a granted land and the land does

not cease to be a granted land. It was further held that

order of conversion permitting diversion of the user of

the land by the Deputy Commissioner under Section

95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) cannot be

presumed or deemed to be a permission under Section

4(2) of PTCL Act. The orders passed by the Assistant

Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner were set

aside and the matter was remitted for decision afresh.

The aforesaid order of remand by learned single judge

in Smt.Muniakkayyamma’s case was affirmed by

division bench vide order dated 06.07.2010 passed in

W.A.No.3656/2005, without expressing any opinion on

merits.

9. In The Tibetan Children’s Village case,

supra, a division bench of this court held that after

conversion of the land under Section 95(2) of the Act,

the purpose for which the land was granted no longer

 14

remains the same and therefore, the order of

conversion shall be deemed to be a permission for

alienating the property. It was further held that if an

alienation is made in respect of converted land, without

obtaining approval of the Government, the same would

not amount to violation of PTCL Act. The aforesaid

decision has been followed by a learned single judge of

this court in Sri.Kumar case, supra. Thus, it is evident

that there are no dissonant views taken by the division

benches of this court. However, learned Single Judge

formulated the issues for consideration. In the aforesaid

factual backdrop, the aforesaid three issues arise for our

consideration in this reference.

10. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to

refer to relevant extract of statutory provisions viz.,

Section 3(1)(b) and Section 4 of PTCL Act and Section

95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which read as

under:
 15

3(1)(b) – “granted land” means

any land granted by the Government to a
person belonging to any of the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and
includes land allotted or granted to such
person under the relevant law for the time
being in force relating to agrarian reforms
or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other
than that relating to hereditary offices or
rights and the word “granted” shall be
construed accordingly;

4. "Prohibition of transfer of
granted lands"- (1) Notwithstanding
anything in any law, agreement, contract
or instrument, any transfer of granted land
made either before or after the
commencement of this Act, in
contravention of the terms of the grant of
such land or the law providing for such
grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and
void and no right, title or interest in such
land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever
to have conveyed by such transfer.

(2) No person shall, after the

commencement of this Act, transfer or
 16

acquire by transfer any granted land

without the previous permission of the
Government.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and

(2) shall apply also to the sale of any land
in execution of a decree or order of a civil
court or of any award or order of any other
authority.

95. Uses of agricultural land and

the procedure for use of agricultural land
for other purpose.—(1) Subject to any law
for the time being in force regarding
erection of buildings or construction of
wells or tanks, an occupant of land
assessed or held for the purpose of
agriculture is entitled by himself, his
servants, tenants, agents, or other legal
representatives, to erect farm buildings,
construct wells or tanks, or make any
other improvements thereon for the better
cultivation of the land or its more
convenient use for the purpose aforesaid.

(2) If any occupant of land

assessed or held for the purpose of
agriculture wishes to divert such land or
 17

any part thereof to any other 1964: KAR.

ACT 12] Land Revenue 505 purpose, he
shall notwithstanding anything contained
in any law for the time being in force apply
for permission to the Deputy
Commissioner who may, subject to the
provisions of this section and the rules
made under this Act, refuse permission or
grant it on such conditions as he may
think fit.

11. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is an

Act enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating

to land and the land revenue administration in the State

of Karnataka and was enacted with the object of

providing for a uniform law and land revenue

administration in the state. The PTCL Act is a special Act

enacted in later point of time i.e., in the year 1978, with

the object to protect and preserve the interests of the

persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribe.

 18

12. Now we may proceed to deal with the issues

which emanate from the order of the learned Single

Judge in descending order.

(iii) Whether the definition of the word

‘granted land', as found in the PTCL Act, could be

restricted only to agricultural lands?

(A) Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act defines the

expression “granted land”. The aforesaid definition uses

the expression ‘means and includes’, the word ‘includes’

is often used in definition clauses to enlarge the

meaning and phrases of the word occurring in the body

of statute and therefore, such words have to be

construed comprehensively. It is settled Rule of

Statutory Interpretation that expression ‘means and

includes’ suggests an exhaustive definition [See:'DELHI

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BHOLALAL

SHARMA', (2011) 2 SCC 54, and 'DAV COLLEGE

TRUST & MANAGEMENT SOCIETY AND ORS VS.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.',

 19

(2019) 9 SCC 185]. Thus, from perusal of the

aforesaid definition, it is evident that the expression

“granted land” covers any land granted by the

Government and includes the land allotted or granted to

such person under relevant law relating to agrarian

reforms or land ceiling or abolition of inams, other than

that relating to hereditary office or rights. The principle

of Noscitur a sociis applies only when two or more

words are susceptible of analogous meaning and are

coupled together. The words used in Section 3(1)(b) of

the PTCL Act are not susceptible to any analogous

meaning and are clear. Therefore, the aforesaid Rule

has no application to Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act.

The aforesaid definition is an extensive definition and

the expression ‘land’ includes house sites or non

agricultural land also. The view taken by learned single

judge in Kariyappa’s case, supra, states the correct

position of law. Accordingly, the third issue is answered

in the negative
 20

(ii) Whether an order of conversion passed

by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 95 of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 would take

away a granted land from the purview of the PTCL

Act?

(A) Article 46, which is contained in Part IV of the

Constitution of India provides that State shall promote

with special care, the educational and economic

interests of the weaker section of the people and in

particular schedule castes and schedule tribes and

protect them from social injustice and all forms of

exploitation. In rural areas, land provides economic

status to the owner. The State is therefore, under a

constitutional obligation to ensure that opportunities

provided to the poor to augment their economic

position. The Act, which is a special legislation is

enacted to protect and preserve the economic interests

of the persons belonging to schedule castes and

schedule tribes and to prevent their exploitation. The

 21

assignment/allotment of the land is made to a person

belonging to schedule castes and schedule tribes to

augment their economic position. It is well settled rule

of statutory interpretation that a statute is an edict of

the legislature and the conventional way of interpreting

or constructing a statute is to see the intention of its

makers. A statute has to be construed according to the

intent of those that make it and the duty of the

judicature is to act upon the true intent of the

legislature – ‘the mens or sentential legis’ [See

Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Justice G.P.

Singh, 14th edn., Page 3].

(B) Thus, if Section 3(1)(b) and Section 4(2) of

the Act are read together in conjunction, it is evident

that the benefit of protection from transfer of land to

persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribe

community has been granted only in respect of granted

land i.e., the land allotted to the persons belonging to

the schedule caste and schedule tribe community by the

 22

Government or allotted to such persons under the

relevant law for the time being in force relating to

agrarian reforms or land ceiling or abolition of inams,

other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights.

However, when such person seeks conversion of the

aforesaid land under Section 95(2) of the Act, it

presupposes that the land granted is an agricultural land

and the person belonging to schedule caste and

schedule tribe intends to use it for non-agricultural

purposes. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that

the intention of the legislature is to grant protection to

an allottee in respect of 'granted land'. Once such

permission for conversion of land is granted under

section 95(2) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner,

the aforesaid land loses its nature as a "granted land"

and therefore, the protection available under Section

4(2) of the Act is no longer available. Accordingly, the

second issue is answered in the affirmative.

 23

(i) Whether an order of conversion passed by

the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 can be

construed as prior permission granted by the

Government, satisfying the requirements under

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act?

(A) The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is a

law enacted with the object to provide a uniform law

governing land and land revenue administration in the

State. The Act provides for the matters pertaining to

land and land revenue, grant, use and relinquishment of

un-alienated land, revenue survey, division of survey

numbers and partition of estates, assessment and

settlement of land revenue of agricultural land, record

of rights boundaries and boundary marks, survey and

settlement of land, realization of land revenue and other

public demands, revenue jurisdiction and powers and

procedures of revenue officers. The PTCL Act is a special

law enacted later in point of time, which deals with

 24

provisions for protection of rights of persons belonging

to schedule caste and schedule tribe, in respect of land

allotted or granted to them. Thus, both the aforesaid

enactments operate in different fields and the relevant

provisions of the PTCL Act viz., Section 3(1)(b) and 4 as

well as Section 95 of the Act are not in conflict with

each other.

(B) Section 95(2) of Act provides that in case

occupant of any land assessed or held for the purpose of

agriculture, wishes to divert such land shall apply for

permission to the Deputy Commissioner who may

subject to provisions of Section 95 and the rules made

under the Act may refuse permission or grant it on such

conditions as it may deem fit. It is pertinent to mention

here that State Government vide Notification dated

07.06.1999 published in the gazette dated 08.06.1999

has issued guidelines for simplifying and for maintaining

a uniformity in grant of permission for conversion to

 25

non-agricultural purpose. The relevant conditions of the

guidelines are reproduced below:

6. Deputy Commissioners and the

Assistant Commissioners should only look into
the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 and other allied laws like the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978, the Karnataka Land Grant
Rules, 1969, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
etc.

7. As soon as the application is received by

the Tahisldar, the same shall be verified by the
Tahsildar. He shall verify the following:

(i) Only the occupant of the land

has filed the application;

(ii) The conversion will not defeat

any of the following laws, in particular -

(a) Sections 48-A, 77 and

77-A of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961.
(b) Rule 9 of the Karnataka
Land Grant Rules, 1969;
 26

(c) Section 4(1) and 4(2)

and Prohibition of PTCL Act;
(d) Rule 102-B of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,
1966 relating to green belt.

(iii) The land has not been notified

for acquisition under Sections 4 and 6
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Even though in the aforesaid guidelines, the

Deputy Commissioners are required to ensure that

conversion will not defeat provisions of Section 4(1)

and Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, yet the fact remains

that the scope of enquiry is different. Section 96 of the

Act provides for consequences of non-compliance of the

condition prescribed in Section 95(2) of the Act. Thus,

Section 95 and Section 96 of the Act are a complete

code in themselves in so far as issue pertaining to grant

of permission for diversion of the land is concerned.

(C) Section 4 of the Act begins with a non-

obstante clause and curtails the right of a purchaser

from a person belonging to schedule caste and schedule

 27

tribe community to purchase a land provides that such

person has to obtain previous permission from the State

Government, failing which transfer of granted land shall

be null and void. However, it is worth mentioning that

the transfer or acquisition by transfer of “any granted

land” without previous permission of the Government

has been prohibited. There is no reference in Section 4

of the PTCL Act to Section 95(2) of the Act. It is well

settled in law that when a statute provides a mode of

doing a particular act in a particular way, then such a

thing has to be performed in that manner alone and

performance of that thing in all other manner is

prohibited. [See:'NAZIR AHMED VS KING EMPEROR

AIR 1932 PC 238 (PRIVY COUNCIL), 'COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH VS. PEARL

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS

PVT.', (2004) 4 SCC 597, 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX, MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M GHASWALA', AIR 2001 SC

3868, 'COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BANGALORE JUTE

FACTORY', 2005 (13) SCC 477, 'THE GOA FOUNDATION

 28

VS. SESA STERLITE LTD. AND ORS.', (2018) 4 SCC

218].

(D) In the instant case, the statute namely PTCL,

specifically provides that the permission for

transfer/acquisition by transfer in respect of any

granted land cannot be made except after obtaining

prior approval of the Government. Thus, the transfer/

acquisition by transfer in granted land has to be made

in the manner prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act

i.e. the special enactment and an order of conversion

passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section

95(2) of the Act granted to an occupant of the land to

use the land for purposes other than agriculture, cannot

be construed as fulfillment of requirement under Section

4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is also noteworthy that

competent authorities under both the provisions viz.,

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and under Section 95(2) of

the Act are different, viz., the State Government and

Deputy Commissioner respectively. The object and

 29

purpose of both the provisions contained in different

enactment is entirely different. The scope of enquiry

under both the provisions is entirely different. Both the

aforesaid provisions operate in different fields.

However, as we have already held that once the land is

diverted, the same ceases to be a 'granted land' under

the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in case of a

diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the

permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise

as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of

'granted land' and the land on conversion no longer

remains 'granted land'. Therefore, the issue whether an

order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner

under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act,

1964 can be construed as prior permission by the

Government satisfying the requirements under Section

4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise in case of diverted

lands. The aforesaid issue is therefore, answered

accordingly.
 30

In view of preceding analysis, the reference is

answered accordingly.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

SS