The Karnataka SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Land Law

On this page

1. Object
2. Definitions: section 3
3. Prohibition: section 4
4. Resumption and restitution: section 5
5. The limitation question and the 2023 amendment
6. Appeal, registration, exemption and penalty: sections 5A to 11
7. Problem: the grantee s children
8. Problem: buying from an SC vendor
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The examinable core. The PTCL Act (Karnataka Act 2 of 1979, in force from 1 January 1979) does one thing: it undoes transfers of land that the Government granted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons, and gives the land back to the grantee or his heirs. Three sections carry it: section 3 (what is “granted land” and “transfer”), section 4 (such transfers are void) and section 5 (the Assistant Commissioner resumes and restores). The 2023 amendment, which removed any time limit for invoking the Act, is now part of every answer.

1. Object

The Statement of Objects and Reasons records that the non-alienation clause in the Land Grant Rules, and the power to cancel grants on breach, had not protected SC and ST grantees, whose ignorance and poverty were exploited by affluent sections to obtain sales or mortgages for nominal or no consideration. To fulfil the purpose of the grant, the land, even if alienated, should be restored to the grantee or his heirs. Section 2 declares that the Act gives effect to the policy in Article 46 (promotion of the economic interests of the weaker sections, in particular SCs and STs), which brings it within Article 31C.

In Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka, 1984 INSC 84, (1984) 3 SCC 301, the Supreme Court upheld the Act. A grant made subject to a condition against alienation gives the transferee, at best, a title voidable at the instance of the State; the legislature could therefore declare such transfers void, even those made before the Act, and order restoration without compensation. The Court added that transferees who had perfected title by adverse possession before the Act came into force would not be affected.

2. Definitions: section 3

Granted land (section 3(1)(b)): any land granted by the Government to an SC or ST person, including land allotted or granted under laws on agrarian reforms, land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than those relating to hereditary offices or rights. Land an SC person inherited or bought in the market is not “granted land”.
Transfer (section 3(1)(e)): sale, gift, exchange, mortgage (with or without possession), lease, or any other transaction, including creation of a charge and an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease. It excludes a partition among family members and a will.
“Bank” is defined widely (section 3(1)(a)), and undefined words take their meaning from the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (section 3(2)).

3. Prohibition: section 4

Section 4(1): notwithstanding any law, agreement or instrument, any transfer of granted land made before or after the commencement of the Act in contravention of the terms of the grant, or of the law providing for the grant, or of section 4(2), is null and void, and no right, title or interest passes or is deemed ever to have passed.
Section 4(2): after commencement, no person shall transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. This applies whatever the period of non-alienation in the grant.
Section 4(3): both rules apply to court sales in execution of a decree and to sales under awards or orders of other authorities.

4. Resumption and restitution: section 5

Who acts. The Assistant Commissioner, on application by any interested person, on written information by any person, or suo motu.
What he does. If satisfied after inquiry that a transfer is void under section 4(1), he may (a) take possession after evicting all persons in possession, after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and (b) restore the land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where restoration is not reasonably practicable, the land vests in the Government free of encumbrances, to be granted to another SC or ST person.
No limitation (section 5(1)(c) and (d)). Notwithstanding any law, there is no limitation of time to invoke the Act, and this applies to all cases pending before competent authorities and courts. Inserted by Karnataka Act 30 of 2023 (w.e.f. 27 July 2023), and deemed always to have been inserted.
Section 5(1A): if the transfer is not void, he passes an order to that effect.
Finality and bar (section 5(3)): subject to appeal under section 5A, his order is final, cannot be questioned in any court, and no injunction may be granted against his proceedings (writ jurisdiction remains).
Presumption (section 5(4)): where granted land is in the possession of a person other than the grantee or his heir, it is presumed, until the contrary is proved, that he acquired it by a void transfer.

5. The limitation question and the 2023 amendment

The original Act prescribed no period for an application under section 5. In Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 1390 of 2009, decided 26 October 2017), the Court held that where a statute prescribes no limitation its provisions must still be invoked within a reasonable time, and an application made about twenty-five years after the Act came into force was too late. Authorities in Karnataka began rejecting old restoration claims on that basis. The Legislature responded with Act 30 of 2023, whose Statement of Objects refers to this judgment and to the 2023-24 Budget speech. Section 5(1)(c) and (d) now declare that there is no limitation, with retrospective effect and application to pending cases. That is the law in force; whether the retrospective clause survives a constitutional challenge is for the courts to decide.

6. Appeal, registration, exemption and penalty: sections 5A to 11

Appeal (section 5A): to the Deputy Commissioner within three months of communication of the Assistant Commissioner’s order under section 5(1) or 5(1A), delay condonable for sufficient cause; his order is final.
Registration bar (section 6): no registering officer shall register a document transferring or creating an interest in granted land included in the list furnished to him, unless the transfer complies with the Act or the grant.
Exemption (section 7): the Act does not apply to transfers in favour of the State Government, the Central Government, a local authority or a bank.
Penalty (section 8): acquiring granted land in contravention of section 4(2) is punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to two thousand rupees, or both; the offence is cognizable.
Overriding effect (section 11): over any other law, custom, usage, contract, decree or order of a court, tribunal or authority.

Related provisions: section 80A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (inserted in 2020) bars relaxing its conditions for SC/ST granted land during the PTCL prohibition; section 95(2)(v) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 requires rejection of a conversion application that contravenes the PTCL Act; and section 41(9) of the 2013 Act treats such alienations as void for acquisition purposes.

7. Problem: the grantee’s children

Siddalingappa, an SC, was granted 1 acre 20 guntas in 2018. He sold it to A & B company in 2022 and died that year. His children want the land back. Can they succeed? (August 2024)

Issue. Whether the sale is void and whether the heirs can seek restoration.

Law. Sections 3(1)(b), 4(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 5(1)(c), and the exemption in section 7.

Application. The land is granted land. The sale in 2022 was after the Act, so section 4(2) required the Government’s previous permission; none is stated. A company is not the Government, a local authority or a bank, so section 7 does not help it. The sale is therefore void and conveyed nothing. Section 5(1)(b) allows restoration to the grantee “or his legal heir”, so the children can apply to the Assistant Commissioner, and after 2023 no plea of delay is available. The company’s only remedy is to recover the price from the estate as money had and received; it may also face prosecution under section 8.

Conclusion. The children will succeed, unless the company proves that Government permission was obtained.

8. Problem: buying from an SC vendor

Pyarejohn bought 2 acres from Junjappa, an SC, in 2000. Khata and RTC stand in his name. Buyers now refuse to purchase from him because the land originally belonged to an SC person. Advise. (April 2023)

The first question is whether the land is granted land. If Junjappa had inherited or purchased it, the Act does not apply and the title is clean; Pyarejohn should produce the vendor’s title chain. If it was granted land, the next question is whether the Government’s permission under section 4(2) was obtained in 2000. If it was, the sale stands. If not, the sale is void, the presumption in section 5(4) operates against Pyarejohn, the RTC entries give him no title (they are fiscal records only), and since the 2023 amendment the passage of time is no defence. Pyarejohn should not sell until he has a certificate from the revenue authorities on the nature of the land, and buyers are rightly cautious.

How this is examined

“Explain the features of the PTCL Act” is set in nearly every paper (January 2026, June 2025, August 2024, November 2022). “Discuss the objective and the provisions relating to resumption and restitution of granted lands” (August 2024, 100-mark) and the short note “resumption and restitution” (November 2021) use sections 4 and 5. Always add the 2023 amendment and Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi.