The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023 – A Balancing Act?

The enactment of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act) by the Karnataka State Government represented a pivotal step in social welfare legislation, aimed at safeguarding the interests of marginalised communities. It defines “granted land” broadly, encompassing any land allotted by the Karnataka Government to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) and prohibits the transfer of lands granted to SC/ST members and to facilitate the restoration of alienated lands to the original grantees or their heirs. These agricultural lands were originally provided to assist in the economic empowerment and self-sufficiency of SC/ST communities, and the primary objective was to ensure the economic sustenance of these communities, aligning with the egalitarian principles enshrined in Article 14 and the directive principles under Article 46 of the Constitution of India. These Articles emphasise the promotion of educational and economic interests of SCs/STs while protecting them against social injustice and discrimination. However, in response to ongoing challenges and perceived inadequacies in the Act’s implementation, the Karnataka Government introduced significant amendments through the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023 (2023 Amendment).

Before the PTCL Act, land grants were often regularised under the Darkhast Rules, where applicants could obtain legal ownership by submitting a request and paying the requisite fees. Despite the PTCL Act’s robust safeguards, its practical implementation encountered several challenges. One critical issue was the absence of a defined timeline for seeking the restoration of alienated lands under Section 5. The phrase “reasonable time” used in the Act was subject to varying interpretations, leading to legal ambiguity. In the landmark case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka¹, the Supreme Court ruled that a 25year delay in seeking restoration was unreasonable, setting a precedent that long delays without sufficient justification would be deemed arbitrary, potentially prejudicing third-party rights. The same is reflected in K.T. Huchegowda v. Commr. wherein the Supreme Court noted that in cases where transfer of granted land was in contravention to the provisions of the PTCL Act, the transferee acquires only a voidable title, but with long and continuous enjoyment thereof, said title can be perfected and the provisions of the PTCL Act shall not apply.²

The judiciary, in a series of rulings including Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand³ and Collector v. D. Narsing Rao⁴, consistently emphasised that indefinite challenges to land transactions would create uncertainty and undermine the principle of finality in legal matters. These judgments underscored the need for a balanced approach, where the rights of original grantees are protected without infringing upon the legitimate expectations of third-party transferees.

The Karnataka High Court in Devamma v. Commr.⁵, applying the doctrine of reasonable period as elucidated in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi case⁶ among others, noted that if the application is moved beyond a reasonable period it would not only cut off the grantee’s rights under the PTCL Act for resumption of lands, but would also vest the possessor with title. It went on to balance the interests of both parties and further held that the doctrine is not to punish the grantee who has neglected to assert his right, but is propagated to protect those transferees who have maintained possession under registered document for a valuable sale consideration.

The 2023 Amendment: A legislative response

In response to the limitations highlighted by the judiciary, the Karnataka Government introduced the 2023 Amendment, which brought about significant changes to Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Amendment added sub-sections (c) and (d), which effectively removed the limitation period for invoking the Act, thereby allowing claims for restoration of granted lands to be made regardless of the time that had elapsed. This amendment also applied retrospectively, impacting ongoing cases and altering the legal landscape significantly.

The intent behind this legislative shift was to address the longstanding demands of SC/ST communities, who argued that the time-bound restrictions previously imposed were unjustly limiting their ability to reclaim their lands. By eliminating the time-limit, the 2023 Amendment sought to ensure that claims were no longer dismissed merely on the grounds of “unreasonable long delay” as seen in the Supreme Court’s judgments in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav⁷, and Ningappa v. Commr.⁸ particularly in cases where original grantees may have been unaware of their rights or were victims of fraudulent practices.

While the 2023 Amendment aims to rectify historical injustices and protect the rights of marginalised communities, it raises critical questions about the balance of power and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Amendment’s retrospective application and its nullification of established judicial precedents challenge the foundational principles of the Indian legal system.

While other State legislations are sensitive to the historical background which are specific to each of them, it is pertinent that the treatment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been one of significance across all States and therefore it becomes relevant to consider their implementation and effect. For instance, Section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, provides a limitation period of 30 years for claims filed from 6-7-2004 and the Act itself does not apply when the transferred land has been put to non-agricultural use by the transferee. Similarly, Section 7(2) of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, notes that a person entitled to restoration of land must file an application within one year from the publication of the Act.

The Supreme Court, in cases such as State of Karnataka v. Karnataka Pawn Brokers Assn.⁹, has clarified that while the legislature has the authority to amend laws with retrospective effect, it cannot override judicial decisions in a manner that violates the separation of powers.¹⁰ The retrospective application of Section 5(c) and (d) appears to contravene this principle, potentially undermining the rule of law and leading to a flood of claims that could disrupt settled property rights and create legal uncertainty. Furthermore, the Amendment’s removal of any limitation period could be seen as arbitrary, raising concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution, which demands fairness and non-arbitrariness in State actions. The Supreme Court’s observations in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO¹¹, SBI v. M.J. James¹², highlight that legislative actions must be guided by clear, rational principles to avoid being labeled as capricious or excessive.

Thus, while the PTCL Act and Amendments may strive to correct historical wrongs towards the SC/ST communities who have rarely enjoyed property rights, this needs to be juxtaposed with the fundamental tenets of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.¹³ expounded the ambit of Article 14 by reading in non-arbitrariness as a limiting factor in executive actions. Moreover, equality is antithetical to arbitrariness, and the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India¹⁴ opined that “legislation is considered manifestly arbitrary if it is excessive, disproportionate, or enacted capriciously, irrationally, or without a proper guiding principle”. In this case, the 2023 Amendment arbitrarily removes the limitation period thereby prejudicing the rights of third parties who have legitimately acquired and used the land, potentially violating their right to property as well.

Striking the right balance

The 2023 Amendment to the PTCL Act embodies a well-intentioned effort to rectify the historical wrongs faced by SC/ST communities in Karnataka. However, its broad and retrospective application raises concerns about legislative overreach and the potential infringement of the rights of third-party transferees who have acquired such land in good faith and for valuable consideration. While the amendment seeks to promote substantive equality for SCs/STs, ensuring that the rights of all stakeholders are protected requires a nuanced approach that respects both the historical injustices faced by SCs/STs and the legitimate expectations of those who have acquired land under the previous legal framework. Achieving social justice is a complex process that requires a delicate balance between rectifying past wrongs and upholding the rule of law, ensuring that all citizens are treated with fairness and equity.