Karnataka High Court
Chandevarappa R. - Appellant
Versus
Sanna Siddaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 07-06-88
W.P. : 10695 of 1985
alienation - Land Grant Rules - Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Rule 43(8) (a) - Rule 43(2) - Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act - legal provisions discussed and their interpretations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, seeking restoration of land granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste under Darkhast rules, which was later sold to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the restoration of the land to the original grantee and directing the Assistant Commissioner to assess the improvements made by the petitioner before eviction.
Issues: Validity of the condition preventing alienation of the granted land, adverse possession, and consideration of improvements made by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the original Rule 43(8) providing a total ban for alienation governed the case, and the amendment to the rule did not apply retrospectively. It also clarified the period of limitation for perfecting title by adverse possession and considered the lack of a scheme for recognizing improvements under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the restoration of the land to the original grantee was upheld, with a direction to assess the improvements made by the petitioner before eviction.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has called in question the correctness of the orders, Annexures-C and B, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur and the Assistant Commissioner, chikkamagalur Sub-Division, respectively.
( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that Sanna siddaiah, respondent-1 herein, is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and he approached the Tahsildar for grant of a land under Darkhast rules. The competent authority, by its order dated 16-11-1951, granted two acres of land in Sy. No. 6 of beekanhalli village in Chikkamagalur taluk. One of the conditions incorporated in the grant of land made in favour of respondent-1 was that he shall not alienate the land. It is also not in dispute that respondent-1 sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 27-5-1968.
( 3 ) ON coming into force of the karnatake Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short) respondent-1 moved the Assistant commissioner, respondent-2 herein, for restoration of the land in question. Respondent-2, by his order, Annexure B, held that the alienation was null and void and he directed eviction of the petitioner and restoration of the land to respondent-1. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy commissioner, respondent-3 herein, who dismissed the appeal affirming the view taken by respondent-2. Hence this writ petition.
( 4 ) I Heard Sri Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, who, having taken me through the impugned orders, submitted that the competent authority had no power to impose a condition no to alienate the granted land either for 10 years or for ever. He further submitted that as the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the land for more than 12 years, he perfected his title by adverse possession. He lastly submitted that the petitioner invested a lot of money for the improvement of the land and if the petitioner were to be evicted from the land, he would be put to irreparable loss.
( 5 ) DEALING with the first contention of Sri Desai, it is relevant for me to refer to Rule 43 (8) of the Land Grant Rules framed under the Mysore Land Revenue code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Rule 43 (8) reads as follows :"sub-RULE (8 ). The grant of lands under sub-rules (1) and (5) to persons belonging to Depressed Clauses for an upset price or reduced upset price and to poor persons not owning any land shall be subject to the condition that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of twenty years from the date of the grant and the grantees shall also execute mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government : provided that such land may be accepted as security for loan obtained from Government or from a Co-operative society for the purpose of improving the land. Alienation made contrary to this rule shall result in summary resumption of the land so granted and such land shall vest in Government free of all encumbrances and neither the grantee nor the alinee shall be eligible for any Compensation. Add ' (ii) Every grant of land under sub-rules (1) and (5) shall also be subject to the condition that the entire land granted should be brought under cultivation within three years of the grant and the grantee shall execute an agreement to this effect. "
( 6 ) THE learned counsel submitted that this Rule was brought into effect by a notification issued by the Government on 4-8-1953, whereas the land came to be granted in favour of respondent-1 on 16-11-1951. In other words, his contention is that when the land was granted, this Rule was not there. This argument is again based on Rule 43 (8) (a), which reads as follows :"8 (A) Every grant of land under sub- rule (1) shall be subject to the condition, (i) Where the grant is made free of cost, that the land granted shall not not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of grant ; or (ii) Where t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.