Lands granted under Grow More Food Scheme with upset price paid are not "granted lands" under PTCL Act.

The dispute involves 2 acres of land in Survey No. 259 originally granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma in 1961 under the "Grow More Food" (GMF) Scheme

She sold the land (Sy. No. 259/22) to B.G. Muniyappa in 1967, and a portion was eventually purchased by A.J. James and Ancy James in 2006

Separately, one Sri Anjanappa was granted land in Sy. No. 259/18

In 2011, legal heirs of Anjanappa (Gowramma and Bylamma) filed for resumption under the PTCL Act, falsely claiming Venkatamma’s land was actually Anjanappa's and that Venkatamma was his wife

The Assistant Commissioner (AC) ordered resumption in 2014 without proper notice to the current owners

Despite no physical restoration of possession, the State granted Gowramma and Bylamma permission to sell the "resumed" land to H.R. Suresh in 2015

Suresh then allegedly took forcible possession

The Deputy Commissioner (DC) later set aside the resumption in 2023, leading to writ petitions by Suresh which were dismissed by a Single Judge

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act), specifically Section 4 regarding the prohibition of transfer of "granted land"

Section 5 regarding the mandatory procedure for resumption and restitution

Rule 3 of the PTCL Rules, 1979 and Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which prescribe the legal manner of evicting persons and executing restoration orders

Guntaiah v. Hambamma (2005) 6 SCC 228, which clarifies when restrictive covenants apply

Nanjamma v. State of Karnataka (2022), establishing that lands granted at an upset price under the GMF scheme often fall outside the definition of "granted land"

The court found that Gowramma and Bylamma’s claim was fraudulent, as they sought resumption of Sy. No. 259/22 (Venkatamma’s grant) based on rights belonging to Sy. No. 259/18 (Anjanappa’s grant), and failed to prove any legal relationship between the two grantees

Procedurally, the court determined that the State authorities committed a grave illegality by granting permission to sell under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act when physical possession had never been legally recovered from the occupants (James et al.) via the mandatory process under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and Section 39 of the KLR Act

Regarding the GMF scheme, the court noted that since the grant followed a general public policy for food production and involved the payment of an upset price rather than a social welfare grant free of cost, the strict non-alienation conditions of the PTCL Act did not apply

The court concluded that H.R. Suresh took advantage of procedural lapses to forcibly dispossess the respondents, justifying the costs

It held that the PTCL Act was inapplicable to this GMF land and that the resumption process was void for lack of identity of property and procedural non-compliance

In WA No. 1343/2025 (State's appeal), the Court reduced the exemplary costs imposed on the State from ₹10,00,000 to ₹50,000, while maintaining the ₹5,00,000 cost imposed on H.R. Suresh for taking the law into his own hands. The State was granted liberty to recover its costs from the negligent officials involved