Acquisition of title by adverse possession and the extinguishment of title by operation of law.

( 1 ) IN this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1994 of the state government (annexure-c) by which the grant of land to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in survey no. 110 of gudigenahally village has been cancelled on the ground that the same was transferred by the grantee in favour of the petitioner much within ten years of the prescribed non-alienation period.

( 2 ) THE land in question was granted to one dyavappa by the deputy commissioner under his order dated 10-1-1957 on an upset price of Rs. 25/- per acre for agricultural purposes. Saguvali chit was issued to the grantee on 29-1-1957 subject to the condition of non-alienation of the granted land for a period of ten years from the date of taking over of the possession. But the said grantee sold the land to the father of the petitioner on 10-12-1964 under a registered deed thereby violating the non-alienation clause. As such, government initiated proceedings for cancelling the grant by issuing a notice to the grantee and the purchaser and ultimately passed the impugned order cancelling the grant with a direction to resume the land and dispose of the same in accordance with karnataka; land grant rules, 1969.

( 3 ) THE impugned order has been assailed on the ground that since the petitioner had perfected his title by way of adverse possession, the government has no authority to cancel the grant and as such, the order should be quashed. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the recent decision of the supreme court in the case of k. t, huchegowda v deputy commissioner and others. On the other hand, the learned High Court government pleader has submitted that since the grantee was not conferred with absolute title, therefore, the question of acquiring title by way of adverse possession cannot arise and the government has rightly cancelled the grant for violating the terms attached to it.

( 4 ) IN the present case, the land was granted under the provisions of mysore land revenue rules. Rule 43-g of the said Rules reads as under:"the grant is liable to be terminated and the land resumed if any of the aforesaid conditions is not fulfilled and on such resumption, the land shall vest in government free from All encumbrances. Providing that no land shall be resumed under this clause except after giving an opportunity to the grantee or his successor in interest to show cause why the grant should not be terminated and the land resumed".

( 5 ) THERE is a similar provision under rule 25 of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1969 which reads as under: 25. Cancellation of grant. Any grant of land made under these Rules shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to these rules: provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard".

( 6 ) IN the present case, admittedly, the grantee had sold the land to the father of the petitioner and put him in possession on 10-12-1964. The present proceedings for cancellation of the grant were initiated after twenty years of the said sale. The grant made by government to the vendor of the petitioner was not by way of any lease or licence for any particular period. Rather the order of grant shows the conferment of title on an upset price. It becomes further evident from the fact that government itself had imposed a condition of non-alienation within ten years. This condition presupposes that the grantee had acquired a title, but he was restrained from transferring his title within the specified period. 6-a. In respect of the grant of lands made by the state government under the land grant Rules of this state, the Supreme Court in the case of manchegowda and others v State of Karnataka and others (paras 17, 18 and 24) has held that (I) such grants are made by the government as the owner of land to the grante