Back
Karnataka High Court
NARASAREDDY - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR - Respondent
Decided On : 05-28-02
W.P. : 27595 of 1998
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Sections 4 & 5 -Land grant - date of grant -the date of taking possession is the date.
[N. K. Jain, CJ., V. G. Sabhahit & N. Kumar, JJ.] - After an order of grant is made a grant certificate which is in the nature of a title deed or a saguvali chit is to be issued to the grantee demarcating the extent of land granted to him and on such certificate being issued he can enter upon the land and cultivate the same. However, in practice it was noticed though order of grant was made the grantee was not put in possession. He was put in possession later and saguvali chit is a document evidencing the factum of delivery of possession to the grantee. There are also cases where even before of grant the grantee was already in possession and an order of grant was made subsequently. Therefore, on the date of grant if the grantee is put in possession and grant certificate is also issued there is no difficult in holding that period of non-alienation is to be computed from the date of grant itself, but if on the date of grant order possession is not delivered, but possession is delivery subsequently under a grant certificate or a saguvali chit, then that would be the effective date from which the grantee is entitled to enter upon the land and cultivate the land and enjoy and have the benefit of the land granted and therefore the period of non-alienation is to be computed from the said date. The whole object is that grantee should enjoy the land by cultivating the same for a period stipulated in the grant order or the grant certificate. If the grantee is already in possession prior to the date of grant as he had no title to the land and therefore it is the date of order of grant which is to be taken into consideration. The legislative intent is clear from the words used in 1969 Rules where the term "date of grant" was deleted and "date of possession" was introduced. In either of the Rules, the date of Saguvali chit is not referred to at all. If date of saguvali chit is to be taken as the date on which grantee is put on possession the irrespective of the date of grantee it is the date on which the saguvali chit was issued that is to be taken in to consideration for computing the period, but even if on the date of saguvali chit possession is not delivered and it is delivered subsequently, the date of saguvali chit loses significance. If possession is delivered on the date of grant itself and saguvali chit is issued at a later date even then the date of saguvali chit is of no consequence. Therefore, the crucial date would be the date of taking possession of the granted land by grantee, as is clear from the language employed in Rule 9 of the 1969 Rules. Merely because in the 1956, 1958 Rules the words used are date of taking possession, it cannot be said date of taking possession is of no consequence in computing the period of non-alienation clause in respect of grants prior to 1969 Rules. If date of taking possessions is taken into consideration, the controversy which has given rise to the aforesaid decisions would lose importance and pales into significance. It would also achieve the object sought to be achieved not only by the rules, but also by enacting the Act. The letter of law is to be taken as conclusive, unless a literal interpretation of the statute would result in such absurdity and unreasonableness as to make it too obvious that the legislature could not have meant what it said.
Date of taking into possession
KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES, 1969
Rule 9, 43 (6-A) -Land Grant - Possession not delivered on the date of - date of grant - is the date on which certificate is issued.
[N. K. Jain, CJ., V. G. Sabhahit & N. Kumar, JJ.] - After an order of grant is made a grant certificate which is in the nature of a title deed or a saguvali chit is to be issued to the grantee demarcating the extent of land granted to him and on such certificate being issued he can enter upon the land and cultivate the same. However, in practice it was noticed though order of grant was made the grantee was not put in possession. He was put in possession later and saguvali chit is a document evidencing the factum of delivery of possession to the grantee. There are also cases where even before of grant the grantee was already pin possession and an order of grant was made subsequently. Therefore, on the date of grant if the grantee is put in possession and grant certificate is also issued there is no difficult in holding that period of non-alienation is to be computed from the date of grant itself. But if on the date of grant order possession is not delivered, but possession is delivered subsequently under a grant certificate or a saguvali chit, then that would be the effective date from which the grantee is entitled to enter upon the land and cultivate the land and enjoy and have the benefit of the land granted and therefore the period of non-alienation is to be computed from the said date. The whole object is that grantee should enjoy the land by cultivating the same for a period stipulated in the grant order or the grant certificate. If the grantee is already in possession prior to the date of grant as he had no title to the land and therefore it is the date of order of grant which is to be taken into consideration. The legislative intent is clear from the words used in 1969 Rules where the term "date of grant" was deleted and "date of possession" was introduced. In either of Rules date of Saguvali chit is not referred to at all. If date of saguvali chit is to be taken as the date on which grantee is put on possession the irrespective of the date of grantee it is the date on which the saguvali chit was issued that is to be taken in to consideration for computing the period. But even if on the date of saguvali chit possession is not delivered and it is delivered subsequently, the date of saguvali chit loses significance. But if possession is delivered on the date of grant itself and saguvali chit is issued at a later date even then the date of saguvali chit is of no consequence. Therefore, the crucial date would be the date of taking possession of the granted land by grantee, as is clear from the language employed in Rule 9 of the 1969 Rules. Merely because in the 1956, 1958 Rules the words used are date of taking possession, it cannot be said date of taking possession is of no consequence in computing the period of non-alienation clause in respect of grants prior to 1969 Rules. If date of taking possessions is taken into consideration, the controversy which has given rise to the aforesaid decisions would lose importance and pales into significance. It would also achieve the object sought to be achieved not only by the rules but also by enacting the Act. The letter of law is to be taken as conclusive; unless a literal interpreta- tion of the statute would result in such absurdity and un- reasonableness as to make it too obvious that the legislature could not have meant what it said.
( 1 ) THIS reference has been placed before the Full Bench as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 1-4-2002 and has come up before us. A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this matter as per order dated 23-6-1999 to the larger Bench formulating the following questions. 1. What is the meaning of expression date of grant for the purpose of computation of the period of prohibition against alienation under Rule 43 (6-A) of the 1958 Rules as amended after january 20, 1958 or in Rules of 1956 (Rule 43 (6-A) or Rule 43-A (3a) of the Rules) as operative from January 18, 1956 or as used in Rule 43 (8) of the Rules operative from 4-8-1956? 2. Whether correct proposition of law has been laid down by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmamma v State of karnataka and Others, vide observations in paragraphs 75 and 76 or that it has been correctly laid down in the cases of Karappa bovi v Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and Others and hanum. anna v Machappa and Others?
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the order of reference are. Land bearing Sy. No. 83/3 measuring 5 acres of Gudihalli Village was granted to one Marappa on 24-3-1960. The said Marappa belonged to scheduled Caste. However, the saguvali chit/grant certificate was issued on 25-1-1963. The grantee sold the land in favour of the petitioners on 13-12-1974. In view of the passing of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter for short referred to as "act of 1978"), the said grantee made an application, to the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of land as the said sale was in contravention of the Act of 1978. After notice to the petitioners an enquiry was held and the Assistant Commissioner held that the alienation in favour of the petitioners was against the terms of the grant and therefore he ordered eviction of the petitioners and for restoration of land to the grantee. Petitioners filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner which also came to be dismissed. It is against the said orders the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
( 3 ) IT was contended that, firstly, as the grant was for an upset price the prohibition for alienation is to be taken as only 10 years and not 15 years and secondly, it was contended it is the date of grant which is to be taken into consideration and not the date of issue of saguvali chit or grant certificate. The said contention was strongly opposed by the respondents. Both the parties relied on several judgments of this Court on the point and it is in this context the learned Single Judge after referring to the earlier judgments of this Court came to the conclusion that the decisions in Hanumanna's case, supra and Karappa Bovi's case, supra, appears to be in conflict with the decision in Laxmamma's case, supra, and therefore to resolve this dispute he formulated the above said questions for consideration and directed the matter be placed before the hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a large Bench as stated. Accordingly, the matter is before us.
( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at great length, perused the materials on record and the relevant case-laws on the point.
( 5 ) THE Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 has been enacted with the object to prevent the alienation of the lands granted to SCs/sts on certain conditions by the Government, as they are below the poverty line. Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1978 reads as under. "prohibition of transfer of granted lands. Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to ha
SupremeToday
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
