SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Kar) 498

Karnataka High Court
B.SIDDARAMAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 08-05-98
W.P. : 12943 of 1995

Advocates:
G.Lingappa, K.P.Hindu Kumar, Sidagangappa

Headnote:Karnataka SC & ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978-Sections 4 & 5-Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888-Section 333, Land Grant Rules, 1939-Rule 43(8)-granted land-condition prohibiting alienation for 20 years applies to all grants made to persons belonging to SC and ST classes inclusive of free grant or for upset price or reduced upset price.

       

MOHAMED ANWAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the argument of learned Counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) CERTAIN undisputed facts are that an extent of 3 acres of agricultural land in old Sy. No. 22 (New Survey No. 104) of Doddaboki Kere village, Tarikere Taluk of Chickmagalur District belonging to Government was granted free of cost to the late father of respondent 4- chowdaiah on 22-12-1954 and the Saguvelli chit issued on 10-1-1955 with respect thereto was issued to him incorporating the condition that the granted land shall not be alienated by him for a period of 10 years. It is not in dispute that the grantee was a member of Scheduled Caste. Out of the said 3 acres of land, 2 acres 24 guntas thereof was sold by the grantee to the petitioner on 5-4-1971 under a registered sale deed. Since then, the latter is in possession and enjoyment thereof.

( 3 ) ON coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), respondent 4 made an application to respondent 3 seeking resumption of the said land sold to petitioner alleging that the same had been alienated by his father to the latter within the prohibited period. On enquiry the Assistant Commissioner passed the order at annexure-D dated, 19-11-1983 allowing respondent 4's application and directing petitioner's eviction from the land for the purpose of its restoration to respondent 4 holding its sale in petitioner's favour made by the grantee on 5-4-1971 was null and void since it was made within the prohibited period. The said order at Annexure-D of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before respondent 2-Deputy Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by his order at Annexure-E dated 27-3-1985.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that in respect of the said land granted to the grantee on 22-12-1954 the relevant rule imposing ban on its transfer for a specified period was sub-rule (8) of Rule 43 of the Rules framed by the government of Mysore under the Mysore Land Revenue Code in exercise of power under Section 233 of the Code as amended by the Government of Mysore by its Notification No. R. 7594-604-L. R. 266-53-2, dated 4th August, 1953. It reads:"43 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) the grant of lands under sub-rules (1) and (5) to belonging to depressed classes 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 20 years from the date of grant and the grantees shall also execute mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government; provided that such land may be accepted as security for loans 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 alienee shall be eligible for any compensation". Sub-rule (1) of Rule 43 envisages the persons who ate eligible for the grant of land. Its material portion is extracted below:"43 (1) (A) All Lands under the control of the Revenue Department shall ordinarily be granted at an upset price to a person (i) Who under clause (b) is eligible for the grant to the extent to which he is eligible; or (ii) Who is a bona fide agriculturist or who bona fide intends to cultivate the lands himself;"

( 5 ) THE contention of Mr. Lingappa, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was that since the land in question was granted to the grantee free of cost and the grantee admittedly being a member belonging to Scheduled Caste the provision under Rule 43 (8) imposing ban on the transfer of granted land is not applicable. Elaborating his argument he submitted that for applicability of this provision in respect of the land granted to a member belonging to Scheduled Caste i. e. , depressed class,







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top