Settled transactions should not be disturbed after a long period of time.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)

1. Smt. Gundamma and Smt. Siddamma, both widows of Late Ramaiah, were holding the land as permanent tenants under the Inamdar, B.K. Nagaraj. These lands are situated in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/2 and 77/3 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Bangalore. The enactment of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Inams Abolition Act’) which was brought into force with effect from 1.2.1959 abolished such personal inams and the land stood vested with the State of Karnataka free from all encumbrances under Section 1(4) of the Inams Abolition Act. However, certain class of persons were entitled to apply for occupancy rights including the class of permanent tenants and thereby obtain ownership of lands upon payment of specified premium to the Government. It is in pursuance to these provisions that Smt. Gundamma and Smt. Siddamma filed two applications for grant of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act.

2. Before this aspect stood concluded, on 17.7.1961, late Papaiah purchased the land in Sy. No.77 measuring 37½ guntas from Smt. Gundamma and her son Sri Ramaiah. The father of the private respondents, one Nanjusa purchased this land from late Papaiah. The remaining extent of 03 acres and 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 was also purchased directly by the father of the private respondents.

3. It was only on 4.8.1962 that the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition passed the order on the applications filed by Smt. Gundamma and Smt. Siddamma registering them as occupants khatedar under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act. The rights were, thus, perfected and they being already in possession of the land, improvements were made on the same including setting up of a weaving factory by the sons of Respondent No.4.

4. The next development which may be taken note of was the coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter refers to as ‘the SC & ST Act’) which was brought into force on 01.01.1979. The constitutional validity of this Act was upheld in Manchegowda & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 301. It should be useful to reproduce some of the discussions made in the judgment with regard to the SC & ST Act, more specifically in para 7 of the judgment, which reads as under :-

“7. The validity of the Act has been challenged mainly because of the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Act which purport to declare transfers 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 null and void and confer powers on the authority to take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof and to restore such lands to the original grantee or his legal heirs and where it is not reasonably practicable to so restore the land to a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to the grant of such land. It may be noted that the validity of the Act insofar as it imposes prohibition on transfer of granted land after the commencement of the Act has not been challenged and the principal objection to the validity of the Act is taken because of the provisions in the Act seeking to nullify the transfers of granted lands effected before the commencement of the Act.”

5. The aforesaid discussion would, thus, show that the controversy arose on account of the provisions of the SC & ST Act being made applicable even to grants made prior to the commencement of this Act. It is in that context that in para 24, it was observed as under :

“24. Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come within the purview of the Act, and ca