Back
2008(8) Supreme 471
Supreme Court of india
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Chinde Gowda — Petitioner
versus
Puttamma — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 7039 of 2001
Decided on : 14-12-2007
Facts of the case :
Govt land measuring 30 guntas was granted temporarily to R-1’s husband for upset price@500 per acre. Temporary grant of Land was confirmed imposing condition that same shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. Said land was sold by grantee to one “M” whose children sold same to appellant in violation of said condition. After Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act came into force, R-1 made his application to Respondent No. 2 Asst. Commissioner seeking resumption of said land under Section 5 of Act on ground that same had been alienated by her late husband in breach of said non-alienation condition. On enquiry, order was passed by Asst. Commissioner holding said sale null and void and directing appellants eviction from land for its restoration to Respondent No. 1, since her husband grantee was undisputedly a member belonging to Scheduled Caste. On appeal by appellant, said order of Asst. Commissioner came to be confirmed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner.
Appellant, sought for quashing of both orders on ground that both authorities below had erred in declaring null and void said sale made by grantee in favour of “M” on application of sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. Appellant contended that correct Rule was Rule 43-J and not 43 (G) (4).
Findings of the court :
The Court relying upon decision in case of guntariah & Ors. vs Hambanma & Ors. held that if grant by itself specifically said that there shall not be any alienation by grantee for a period of 15 years, that was binding on grantee so long as he did not challenge that clause, more so when he purchased land, in spite of being aware of condition. Granted lands were intended for benefit and enjoyment of original grantees who happened to belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The condition imposed against the transfer for a particular period of such granted lands which were granted essentially for the benefit of the grantees could not be said to constitute any unreasonable restriction. Experience had shown that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to whom lands were granted were, because of their poverty, lack of education and general backwardness, exploited by various persons who could and would take advantage of sad plight of these poor persons for depriving them of their lands. Imposition of the condition of prohibition on transfer for a particular period could not, therefore, be considered to constitute any unreasonable restriction on the right of grantees to dispose of the granted lands. Imposition of such a condition on prohibition in the very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and legal. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act (in short the ‘High Court Act’). Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 180897/95 dated 9.9.1998.
3.Factual background in a nutshell is as follows :
“The Government land measuring 30 guntas in extent in Sy. No.96/12 of Heggur village, T.N.Pura Taluk was originally granted temporarily to R-1’s husband Lingaiah on 26.9.1959 for upset price at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre allowing him to pay the same within the specified time and subject to the condition that on payment thereof the grant shall be confirmed in his favour. It transpires from the impugned orders of the authorities below that because of poverty the grantee could not make payment of the upset price in time and the same was, therefore, made payable in three equal instalments by order dated 24.8.1961. On payment of the said price, the temporary grant of the land was confirmed in his favour by order dated 10.10.1962 imposing the condition that the same shall not be alienated by him for a period of 15 years. In violation of this condition the said land was sold by the grantee on 16.2.1965 to one Manche Gowda whose children, in turn, sold the same to appellant on 22.5.1972.”
After the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act (the Act in short) came into force, R-1 made his application to Respondent No. 2 Asst. Commissioner seeking resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the Act on the ground that the same had been alienated by her late husband in breach of the said non-alienation condition. On enquiry, the order dated 19.7.1993 was passed by the Asst. Commissioner holding the said sale null and void and directing appellants eviction from the land for its restoration to Respondent No. 1, since her husband grantee was undisputedly a member belonging to the Scheduled Caste. On appeal by the appellant, the said order of Asst. Commissioner came to be confirmed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 13.3.1995. The appellant, therefore, sought for quashing of both orders on the ground that both the authorities below have erred in declaring null and void the said sale dated 16.2.1965 made by the grantee in favour of Manche Gowda on application of sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960.
4.The stand of the appellant before the High Court was that Rule 43 G(4) was inapplicable in respect of the said granted land, as the correct rule applicable was sub-rule (J) of Rule 43. It was stated that the Deputy Commissioner had indicated that the land was initially granted on the basis of temporary lease which came to be confirmed by a subsequent order in favour of the lessee. Since the initial grant was on lease basis which came to be confirmed by a subsequent order, the correct Rule applicable in that event is Rule 43(J) and not Rule 43G(4). It was further canvassed that once the grant was under Rule 43(J) any condition imposing ban on alienation thereof will be inopeative and unenforceable. The stand of the State Government was that the grant of land in favour of respondents late husband was made not under Rule 43-J but it was in fact under Rule 43-G. The High Court held the authorities were right in holding that the grant of land was under Rule 43-G and not under Rule 43-J. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the stand taken before the learned Single Judge was reiterated but was rejected.
5.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the correct Rule is Rule 43-J and not 43 (G) (4). Therefore it is submitted that a different scheme is applicable.
6.Similar issue was considered by this Court in Guntaiiah &
SupremeToday
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
