Karnataka High Court
BAPTIST D almeda (DECEASED) BY L.Rs - Appellant
Versus
PARAMESHWARA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-12-02
. : .
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 4-Grant - no restriction on alienation - land alienated to a person belonging to a depressed class - alienation valid.
[R. V. Raveendran & N. K. Patil, JJ.] -Any alienation of granted land whenever made to a person not belonging to depressed classes will be invalid. It is not possible to restrict the prohibition regarding alienation only to the first sale i.e., alienation by the original grantee or legal heirs Para bearing No: (1) and (3) Clause F of B.S.O. No: 15 (13) makes it clear that the restriction in regard to the alienation contained therein applies not only to the first alienation, but to all the subsequent alienation also. Any alienation or even after 10 (ten) years from the date of grant will be valid only if such alienation is to a person belonging to depressed class When the grant was made in favour of Koje , the Board s Standing Orders did not contain any bar, prohibition or restriction in regard to alienation. Therefore neither the Sale Deed dated 5th November 1956 nor the subsequent Sale Deed dated 1st August 1968 can be held to be a transfer in contravention of any term of the grant. Hence Section 4(1) of the P.T.C.L. Act is not attracted.
Prohibition of alienation of granted land
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 5(1) & 4 -Grant governed by Board of Revenue (Madras) Standing Order (order 15) -no prohibition under the order at the time of grant -Act having no application to lands prohibited of alienation -alienation made held to be valid and not hit by the provisions of the Act.
[N. K. Patil, J.] - When the grant was made in favour of koje in the year 1925, the Boards Standing Orders did not contain any bar, prohibition or restriction in regard to alienation. Sec.4 of PTCL Act declares a transfer as void, only if the granted land is transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant. If the law providing for such grant does not contain any prohibition or restriction regarding alienation, it is not possible to presume that the grant contained a prohibition or restriction in regard to sale, where the actual grant is not available. As stated above, where the order of grant or a record of the terms of the grant is not available, it has to be assumed that the grant was in accordance with the Rules that governed grants at the relevant point of time. In this case, having regard to the law (BSO No. 15) providing for such grant at the relevant time, it has to be held that there was no prohibition or restriction in regard to alienation in the grant in favour of Koje. Therefore, neither the sale deed dated 5.11.1956 nor the subsequent sale deed dated 1.8.1968 can be held to be a transfer in contravention of any term of the grant. Hence Sec. 4(1) of PTCL Act is not attracted. The Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were not therefore justified in holding that the alienation to be invalid.
( 1 ) AN extent of 10 cents of land in Sy. No. 120/39 of Jeppinamogaru village of Mangalore Taluk was granted to one Koje alias Kochi d/o. Kavura under the depressed classes darkhast, in D. D. R. No. 3/1335, dated 31-7-1925. The said Koje sold the said land in favour of one seethu Hengsu under the registered sale deed dated 5-11-1956. The said sale deed describes that both the vendor and the purchaser as belonging to Harijan caste. The said Seethu Hengsu in turn sold the said land in favour of the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 1-8-1968. Ever since then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land, as owners. It is stated that Jeppinamogaru Village now falls within the city limits of Mangalore.
( 2 ) THE Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act' for short), came into force on 1-1-1979. 2. 1 Section 4 of the PTCL Act prohibits the transfer of granted lands. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 which is relevant is extracted below:" (1) 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 have conveyed by such transfer". 2. 2 "granted land" is defined under Section 3 (b) of the Act as meaning any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "granted" shall be construed accordingly. 2. 3 Section 5 deals with the resumption and restitution of granted lands. It provides that where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may, by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof and restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir.
( 3 ) THE 4th respondent initiated proceedings under Sections 4 (1) and 5 of the PTCL Act in regard to the said land in case No. A. DIS. PTL. CR. 11/91-92. After examining the records and after giving a hearing to the petitioner, he passed an order on 6-2-1992. He held that the land in question had been granted to one Koje on 31-7-1925 under depressed classes darkhast and such grant was governed by Board's Standing Order No. 15 of the Board of Revenue (Madras ). He held that under the board's Standing Order No. 15 ('bso No. 15' for short), a land granted under the depressed classes darkhast could not be alienated to any person (whether a member of the depressed class or not) in any manner before expiry of 10 years from the date of the grant, nor even thereafter, except to other members of that class. The Assistant Commissioner held that even though the alienation was after the expiry of the 10 years from the date of grant and was in favour of a person belonging to a depressed class, the subsequent alienation was in favour of a person not belonging to a depressed class and therefore the sale was in violation of the conditions of the grant and consequently Section 4 (1) was attracted. The assistant Commissioner therefore declared the sale deed dated 1-8-1968 in favour of the petitioners as null and void under Section 4 (1) of the Act and directed resumption of the land and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.
( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petition
SupremeToday
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.