An Agreement of Sale Concerning Granted Land Without Prior Government Permission is Void and Unenforceable under PTCL Act.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated 07.11.1997 executed by Defendants No. 3 and 4

The Sub-Registrar refused to register the agreement, issuing an endorsement that the land was "granted land" subject to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act), and required prior government permission

Subsequently, the Plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Defendants No. 1 and 2, who allegedly undertook to obtain the necessary permissions

Defendants No. 1 and 2 (Petitioners) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing the suit was barred by Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act

The Trial Court rejected the application, leading to this revision petition

1. Whether an agreement of sale in respect of "granted land" under the PTCL Act, executed without prior government permission, is a valid and enforceable contract in a Civil Court.

2. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC as being barred by law.

The court primarily applied Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which prohibits the transfer of granted land without prior permission of the Government, and Section 4(3), which extends these restrictions to court-ordered executions

Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika, which established that an "agreement of sale" constitutes a "transfer" under the PTCL Act

Venkatanarayanappa v. Siddappa, holding that such agreements are opposed to public policy, void ab initio, and cannot be enforced via specific performance

The court distinguished D.B. Thagaraj v. Jayappa, noting that an agreement is only valid if it contains a clear, original stipulation that the transfer is contingent upon obtaining government permission

The Court determined that the suit property is "granted land" because the Sub-Registrar had specifically refused registration on those grounds

It found that the original agreement dated 07.11.1997 lacked any stipulation making the sale contingent upon obtaining Section 4(2) permission from the Government

While the Plaintiff claimed a subsequent MoU contained such a clause, the Court held that this could not "cure" the illegality of the primary agreement of sale being sued upon

The Court reasoned that since the underlying agreement violated the PTCL Act’s statutory prohibition, it was not a "contract in the eye of law"

Furthermore, per Section 4(3) of the Act, even if a decree were granted, it would be a nullity as it could be annulled by the PTCL authorities

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition. It quashed the Trial Court’s order dated 05.08.2022 and allowed I.A. XIX filed by Defendants No. 1 and 2. Consequently, the plaint in O.S. No. 1252/2006 was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC