Subsequent transfers of granted land are void ab initio if the initial sale violated PTCL Act conditions.

The petitioner purchased 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.No. 143 of Khaji Sonnenahalli Village via a sale deed dated 22.09.1988

His title was derived from Smt. Basamma, who had purchased 3 acres 26 guntas from the original grantee (Sri T. Poojappa) in 1956

In 1995-96, the legal heirs of the grantee initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act.

The Assistant Commissioner (AC) cancelled the 1956 sale deed on 15.05.1998 for violating grant conditions

The petitioner, not being a party to the initial proceedings, challenged this through multiple rounds of litigation, including a remand by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 2325/2008

On remand, the AC reaffirmed the cancellation of the petitioner’s 1988 sale deed via order dated 30.01.2024, which was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) on 24.03.2025

The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds of "delay and laches" and lack of independent findings

Whether the authorities were required to provide an independent finding for the petitioner’s 1988 sale transaction separate from the findings regarding the 1956 transaction of the predecessor-in-title

Whether the PTCL proceedings were liable to be dismissed on the grounds of "delay and laches" based on the *Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi* precedent

Whether a subsequent purchaser can retain title if the primary sale transaction by the original grantee is declared void ab initio under the PTCL Act

The Court applied Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("PTCL Act"), which mandate that any transfer of granted land in contravention of grant terms is null and void, and no right or interest shall be deemed to have ever conveyed

The Court relied on the legal maxim *nemo dat quod non habet* (no one can transfer a better title than they possess), as affirmed in *M. Yashwanth Shenoy v. Muniyappa and Others (2016) 1 SCC 657*, establishing that if the first transfer is void, all subsequent transfers are void *ab initio*

Regarding delay, the Court held that the principle in *Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2020) 14 SCC 232* does not apply to cases where findings reached finality before that judgment was rendered

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner derived title through Smt. Basamma, the validity of his 1988 purchase depended entirely on the validity of her 1956 purchase

Because the 1956 sale was already declared void for violating grant conditions—a finding upheld by the High Court in 2003—the petitioner possessed no valid title to defend

The Court rejected the "delay and laches" argument, noting that the litigation involving the predecessor’s title had attained finality in 2003, long before the *Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi* ruling was delivered; thus, that precedent could not be applied retrospectively to disturb settled findings

Furthermore, the non-obstante clause in Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act effectively "voids" all subsequent transactions once the primary sale is found illegal

It ruled that because the first sale (1956) was void *ab initio*, the petitioner’s subsequent purchase (1988) carried no legal weight, regardless of the petitioner being an intermediate purchaser

The challenge regarding delay was dismissed as the matter had attained finality prior to the shift in law regarding "reasonable time" for filing PTCL petitions

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly