Granted Land under PTCL Act: An Analysis of Jagadish v. State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court in Jagadish v. State of Karnataka clarified that lands regranted under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act with pre-existing hereditary rights do not constitute “granted land” under the PTCL Act.

Introduction

The High Court of Karnataka addressed the key questions regarding the interpretation of “granted land” and how such land should be dealt with under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act), particularly in situations where these lands have a legacy of traditional tenure in Jagadish v. State of Karnataka¹ (Jagadish Chandra case). This article examines the facts, legal issues, judicial reasoning, and the precedent established by the Karnataka High Court in this regard.

Background

The dispute concerns certain lands in Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Bangalore. Historically, the lands were enjoyed under hereditary offices linked held by the family in perpetuity. The main petitioners’ father, i.e. one Mr Nanjusa, acquired approximately 4 acres and 13 guntas from the original grantees who were enjoying the lands pursuant to their hereditary rights granted under Section 5, Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Mysore Act). Following conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use, the property was divided through a registered document.

Multiple suits and claims were filed by various parties aggrieved by this conversion, each of which was eventually dismissed. The petitioners contended that their position was supported by the precedent set in M. Munikenchappa v. Commr., Bangalore² (Munikenchappa case), wherein the Court held that the land granted under the Mysore Act cannot be construed as a “granted land” to attract the provisions of the PTCL Act.

However, the single Judge Bench in the Jagadish Chandra case (writ petition filed by the petitioners before the single Judge Bench), reconsidered its earlier order in the Munikenchappa case³, and came to conclusion that the land that was granted to the original grantees under the Mysore Act would attract the provisions of PTCL Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.

Legal issue

The pivotal issue considered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka was whether land regranted to a person with pre-existing hereditary or tenancy rights under the Mysore Act, could be categorised as “granted land” under Section 3(1)(b) PTCL Act.⁴ This determination affected the application of restrictions on transfer and the restoration of such lands to original grantees.

Court’s reasoning

The Karnataka High Court undertook an interpretative analysis of the definition of “granted land”, wherein the Court observed that the legislature had purposefully excluded certain categories of land granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, acknowledging circumstances in which beneficiaries had already enjoyed lawful possession or tenancy. The Court further noted that in cases where individuals held property as tenants by virtue of hereditary office, their rights arose from statute, and any regrant under Section 5 Mysore Act merely converted an existing tenancy into absolute ownership. Such lands, according to the Court, did not possess the characteristics of “granted land” within the meaning of the PTCL Act, which aimed to protect transfers made for the benefit of socially disadvantaged communities rather than to regularise longstanding hereditary tenures and tenancies.

Relying on the judgment in the M. Munikenchappa case⁵ and also in Mohd. Jaffar v. State of Karnataka⁶, the Court set aside the order of the Single Judge. It held that the PTCL Act could not be invoked in this case, as the lands in question were not “granted lands” under the statute.

Conclusion

The judgment in the Jagadish Chandra case decision is significant for its nuanced distinction between statutory protection of newly granted lands to SC/STs and lands regularised for families with historical hereditary offices or tenancy rights. It clarifies that not all regranted lands fall within the protective ambit of the PTCL Act, thereby preventing unwarranted restrictions on land transfer in cases of historic tenure regularisation. The said judgment also serves as a critical judicial reference for interpreting “granted land” in property disputes under the PTCL Act. It underscores the importance of assessing pre-existing rights and legislative intent to ensure the correct application of protective land transfer statutes, especially in regions where families held historic systems of land tenure under hereditary offices.