Important point
Where lands were given to landless persons almost free of cost and it was done as a social welfare measure to improve the conditions of poor landless persons, when these lands were purchased by third parties taking advantage of illiteracy and poverty of the grantees, Karnataka Act of 1979 was passed declaring such transfers as null and void.

Headnote:(i) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978—Sections 4, 5 and 11—Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment Rules), 1960—Rules 43, 43-E, 43-G, 43-J—Grant of lands to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes—Grant with a restriction that grantees shall not alienate these lands to third parties for 15 years—These lands were granted to them during the period 1959-65—Act 2 of 1979 came into force on 1.1.1979—Section 4 of the Act stating that any transfer of granted land made in contravention of terms of the grant of such land shall be null and void—Persons who had obtained grant of Government land, contrary to the condition regarding alienation, transferred the properties to third parties—Original allottees who were either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes transferred the property to third parties without obtaining previous permission of the Government—Later, the original allottees filed applications for restoration of lands which were transferred contrary to Section 4 of the Act—Assistant Commissioner held that all the transfers were null and void and directed restoration of possession to the original grantees—Single Judge confirmed the orders passed by the authority—Whether prohibition regarding alienation is binding on the grantee —(Yes)—Whether Full Bench was justified in holding that the land was granted under Rule 43-J, therefore, authorities were not empowered to impose conditions regarding alienation—(No).
       Held : When the rule itself says that where the grant is made free of cost or at a price which is less than the full market value, such grant shall be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land after the grant, such conditions could be imposed on any grant made to the party. (Para 12)
       It is also pertinent to note that the prohibition regarding alienation is a restrictive covenant binding on the grantee. The grantee is not challenging that condition. In all these proceedings, challenge is made by the third party who purchased the land from the grantee. The third party is not entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the grantor to the grantee were void. As far as the contract of sale is concerned, it was entered into between the Government and the grantee and at that time the third party purchaser had no interest in such transaction. Of course, he would be entitled to challenge the violation of any statutory provisions but if the grant by itself specifically says that there shall not be any alienation by the grantee for a period of 15 years, that is binding on the grantee so long as he does not challenge that clause, more so when he purchased the land, inspite of being aware of the condition. The Full Bench seriously erred in holding that the land was granted under Rule 43-J and that the authorities were not empowered to impose any conditions regarding alienation without adverting to Section 4 of the Act 2 of 1979. These lands were given to landless persons almost free of cost and it was done as a social welfare measure to improve the conditions of poor landless persons. When these lands were purchased by third parties taking advantage of illiteracy and poverty of the grantees, Act 2 of 1979 was passed with a view to retrieve these lands from the third party purchasers. (Para 14)
       The conditions restricting alienation imposed by the authorities are legally valid and the finding of the Full Bench to the contrary is not correct and the impugned Judgment is thus not sustainable in law. The impugned Judgment is set aside, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld and these appeals are allowed. (Para 15)
       (ii) Interpretation of Statutes—Marginal Notes—Not considered as part of the Act—Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960—Rule 43.
       Held : In the title to Rule 43-G, it is stated that the grants of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions. This title to the rules as such cannot be taken as the key words to interpret Rule 43-G. They have got the effect of only marginal notes. The marginal notes are not considered as legitimate aid to construction of any section or rule. The side notes are not considered as part of the Act. (Para 11)

Judgment

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—All these appeals have been filed against the common Judgment passed by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in five Writ Appeals.

2. Under the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment Rules), 1960 [hereinafter being referred to as “Rules of 1960”], certain lands were granted to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Initially, these lands were given to them on temporary lease and later by virtue of Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960, these lands were given to them permanently with a restriction that the grantees shall not alienate these lands to third parties for a period of 15 years. These lands were granted to them during the period 1959-65. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 [hereinafter being referred to as “Act 2 of 1979”] came into force on 1.1.1979. Section 4 of this Act is to the effect that any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, shall be null and void and no right, title or interest on such land shall be conveyed nor be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. The persons who obtained grant of Government land, contrary to the condition regarding alienation, transferred the properties to third parties. In some cases, even the transferees had effected further transfer of such lands to others. Section 5 of Act 2 of 1979 empowers the Assistant Commissioner to pass appropriate orders for restoration of the land to the original allottee in case any transfer was effected contrary to Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of Act 2 of 1979 provides that an Assistant Commissioner, on application by any interested persons or on information given in writing by any person, or suo-motu, after such inquiry, if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void as provided under sub-Section (1) of Section 4, may by order, take possession of such land after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person evicted, and restore the land to the original allottee. An appeal also is provided against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Section 11 of Act 2 of 1979 further states that Act 2 of 1979 shall have overriding effect over the other laws.

3. In all these cases, the original allottees who were either scheduled castes or scheduled tribes transferred the property to third parties without obtaining previous permission of the Government. Later, the original allottees or their successors-in-interest filed applications before the Assistant Commissioner praying for restoration of lands which were transferred contrary to Section 4 of Act 2 of 1979. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting inquiry in these cases held that all the transfers were null and void and directed restoration of possession to the original grantees. The affected parties filed appeals and those appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority. Those orders were challenged before the High Court and the learned Single Judge confirmed the orders passed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeals were filed which came up before the Division Bench. An argument was canvassed on behalf of the transferees of such lands that the lands in all these cases were granted under Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960 and as it is not specifically provided under Rule 43-J that there shall be any restriction on alienation, the restriction imposed was not valid or enforceable. The Division Bench of the High Court thought it fit to refer the matter to the Full Bench as certain conflicting opinions were expressed by different Benches of the same High Court. The relevant portion of the reference order was to the following effect:-

“One of the important questions that arises for consideration in these Writ Appeals is as to whether an Authority granting land under Rule 43

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 925

Cases Referred (1)