Back
K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA
R. Chandevarappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - Appellant’s predecessor was granted two acres and alienation was proscribed for a period under the Act; sale to the appellant was challenged as violative of the prohibition and Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code. (!) (!) - The Court held that the alienation was void as contrary to the Act and public policy, and that the State retains title; adverse possession arguments were not established due to lack of pleadings and the original grantee having no right to alienate. (!) (!) (!) - The prohibition on alienation is part of a constitutional policy of economic empowerment under Articles 14, 21, 38, 39 and 46; the sale cannot be validated under Section 23 of the Contract Act. (!) (!) - Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code absolutely prohibits alienation of assigned lands; the Division Bench decision aligning with this view was affirmed. (!) - The appeals were dismissed without costs. (!) - Mention of related precedent: Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and K.T. Huchegowda v. Dy. Commr. cited in arguments. (!)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The facts in the Appeal No. 8507 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11571 of 1989 are sufficient to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment, since common question of law arises for decision.
3. The appellants predecessor-in-title, Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah was granted on 16-11-1951 an extent of two acres of land in government vacant land bearing Survey No. 6 of Beekanahalli Village, Chikmangalur Taluk and District. The appellant claimed to have purchased the property from the sons and widow of the assignee on 16-10-1968. On a representation made by one of the sons on 27-2-1987 to the Assistant Commissioner contending that the alienation was in violation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978, the sale was set aside as violative of the Revenue Code, Rule 43(5). The appellant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority by its order dated 17-11-1987 confirmed the same under Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code. In the writ petition and writ appeal, it was confirmed. Thus the appeal against the order of the Division Bench dated 23-6-1989 made in WA No. 9
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
