Unpermitted transfers of granted land are void and cannot be validated by settlement.

The land in dispute had been granted to Ramdas Naik, and the grant records included a 15-year non-alienation condition.

Prakash purchased the land by sale deed dated 25 August 1993, without obtaining the Government’s prior permission.

Following a restoration application, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the sale; the Single Judge upheld that order and dismissed Prakash’s writ petition.

In the writ appeal, the parties filed a memo seeking withdrawal based on a settlement involving payment of ₹60 lakh to Prakash and a further ₹3 lakh subject to resolution of legal and administrative issues.

The Division Bench rejected the memo and heard the appeal on merits; Prakash’s principal submission was that he had invested in the land.

1. Whether the Court could accept withdrawal of the appeal pursuant to a settlement concerning granted land where the underlying transfer was found to be void under the PTCL Act.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s decision upholding the Deputy Commissioner’s order warranted appellate interference.

Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 prohibits transfer of granted land without the Government’s prior permission; the judgment states that a post-commencement transfer made without such permission is invalid and null and void.

The grant’s 15-year non-alienation condition also applied, as the upset price had been waived.

In addressing delay, the Single Judge relied on Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner & Others, AIR 2019 SC 2797, for the proposition that an eight-year delay, by itself, does not bar restoration action.

The Division Bench adopted the Single Judge’s reasoning and found its decision to be a correct application of law.

The Court concluded that accepting the settlement-based withdrawal would give its imprimatur to a transfer that the earlier ruling had found void under Section 4(2), because the sale took place after the PTCL Act came into force and no prior Government permission was shown.

The settlement’s payment terms and proposed consequential steps did not alter the statutory position; the Court therefore rejected the withdrawal memo.

On the appeal’s merits, the Court found that the Single Judge had considered the relevant record and correctly upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s order.

Prakash’s investment in the land and the payment under the settlement did not furnish a ground to interfere.

It left Prakash at liberty to seek refund of the amount paid, including interest, in accordance with law.