Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
N. Venkateshappa – Appellant
Versus
Munemma & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1351-1352 OF 2016 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL (C) Nos. 22677-22678 of 2011)
Decided On : 15-02-2016
(1981) 1 KarLJ 1; 1994 (1) KLJ 385 – Cited with approval
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – High Court setting aside concurrent finding of courts below – Not sustainable. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Agricultural land bearing Survey No.83 of Hoshalli Village, Kolar District, Karnataka admeasuring 3 acres 39 guntas was Thalavari Inamthi land in the hands of original Baruvardars named Muni Papanna and his father Narasappa. Said Muni Papanna and Narasappa sold this land under registered sale deed dated 13.05.1971 in favour of one Nadumpalli Muneppa. Pursuant to the sale deed, the alienee was put in possession of the land.
The land in question was re-granted in favour of Muni Papanna and two others. The re-grant in favour of those two others was challenged by Muni Papanna which was allowed and the re-grant was confirmed in favour of Muni Papanna alone. Those proceedings attained finality and became conclusive.
Original Suit was filed by the present appellant, being the successor-in-interest of Nadumpalli Muneppa i.e. the alienee.
The Trial Court accepted the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.
The lower Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
The second appeal was allowed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in setting aside concurrent view of courts below.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 in Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011 passed in R.P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
3. The Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 abolishes village offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution of India. The appointed date under Section 2(a) of the Act is 01.02.1963. Section 4 of the Act abolishes all village offices on and with effect from the appointed date and sub-section (3) of Section 4 stipulates that subject to the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 land annexed to a village office shall stand resumed and be subject to the payment of land revenue as if it were unalienated land or ryotwari land. Section 5 of the Act lays down that the lands so resumed under Section 4(3) of the Act and not falling under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act be granted to the person who were holders of the village offices immediately prior to the appointed date on such payment as prescribed. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act lay down that if the land so resumed is held by an authorized holder it shall be re-granted to such holder on payment of occupancy price as prescribed.
4. The Act was amended by Act No.13 of 1978 which inter alia inserted Section 5(4) as under:-
“5(4) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (3) shall be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and any person in possession thereof shall be summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner and the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the law applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands:
Provided that if the person who has transferred the land in contravention of sub-section (3) is not alive, while disposing of such land, preference shall be given to the heirs of such person.
Explanation.—For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that in sub-section (3), and in this sub-section transfer includes creation of a lease. ”
Section 7 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act now reads as under:
“7. Eviction of unauthorised holders etc.—
(1) Where any land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorised holder such unauthorised holder shall be summarily evicted therefrom and the land shall be taken possession of by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law: Provided that no such summary eviction shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of making representation.
(2) Any order of eviction passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of the power conferred by subsection (1).
(3) The land from which an unauthorised holder is evicted under sub-section (1) shall,-
(a) if it was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to an inferior village office be re-granted to the holder of such village office; and
(b) in other cases be disposed of in accordance with the law applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands.”
5. In Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, (1981) 1 KarLJ 1 Division Bench of the High Court had an occasion to consider questions including one concerning rights of an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the authorized holder. It dealt with various issues but the one concerning the present matter was Question No. (iii) which was to the following effect:
“(iii) Did an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the authorized holder, acquire title to such land, if the alienation had taken place between the date of the coming into force of the Principal Act and the date of the re-grant, after its re-grant to its holder or the authorized holder under Section 5 or 6
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
