Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 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. R * 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
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.
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’).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In view of preceding analysis, the reference is answered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS