Revenue authorities cannot order possession in an encroachment dispute after finding the PTCL Act inapplicable.

Respondent No. 7’s predecessor, Baikula, was allegedly granted 4 acres 38 guntas in old Sy. No. 44 (new Sy. No. 159), Guddethota Village.

Revenue proceedings followed an allegation that the petitioner company had encroached on 2 acres 28 guntas of that land.

After earlier proceedings and remand by the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner held that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (PTCL Act) did not apply, but nevertheless directed delivery of the disputed portion to respondent No. 7.

The Deputy Commissioner confirmed that order.

The company challenged both orders and sought restoration of possession.

1. Whether, after finding the PTCL Act inapplicable, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to direct delivery of the disputed land to respondent No. 7.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of possession taken pursuant to the impugned orders.

The Court considered the PTCL Act and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, under which the proceedings had originated.

It held that where the PTCL Act is found inapplicable, the revenue authorities cannot use proceedings under that Act to direct delivery of land as though conducting a resumption proceeding.

A claim concerning alleged encroachment must be pursued before the competent civil court, rather than determined by revenue authorities in PTCL proceedings.

No precedent was cited.

The Assistant Commissioner expressly found that the PTCL Act did not apply but nonetheless ordered the alleged encroached portion to be handed over to respondent No. 7.

The Deputy Commissioner confirmed that direction.

The Court held that the authorities could not grant that relief once they had concluded that the Act conferring the relevant jurisdiction was inapplicable; the alleged encroachment had to be pursued in the competent civil court.

Since the impugned orders were unsustainable, the Court also directed restoration of possession taken from the petitioner.

The Court quashed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 19 February 2020 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 7 July 2022, and directed the revenue authorities to restore possession of the land taken from the petitioner, in accordance with law, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Prayer No. iv was also allowed.