Assignment of land of Government with harijans.

Anand, C.J.:

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single dismissing W.P.No.2928 of 1981 vide judgment dated 143.1988.

2. The facts are short and not in dispute. An area measuring 3.39 acres in Survey No.249 Karahathahalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, which was Government land, assigned to one Akkumaran by the Government vide order of assignment dated 31.12.1955. The assignment was subject to certain conditions which have been enumerated in Special Form D of Board Standing Order 15, para 9. The assignment of the land was made out land which was reserved for Harijans to Akkumaran who was an Adi Dravida. The land sold by the assignee, Akkumaran, in favour of one Muthu vide sale deed dated 26.11.1979. Muthu also like the assignee was also a Harijan. Subsequently on 4.6.1977 the appellant purchased the land from Muthu.

3. On account of the violation of the terms of the assignment, a show cause notice issued by the third respondent on 31.10.1980 calling upon Muthu as well as the appellant show cause as to why the original assignment made in favour of Akkumaran on 31.12.1955 be not cancelled as the alienation had been made in violation of the conditions assignment. An explanation was submitted by the appellant on 11.12.1980 after considering which the third respondent cancelled the assignment originally made in favour of Akkumaran principally on the ground that sale had been made of the assigned land in favour of a Hindu, not a Harijan, in violation of the conditions of assignment contained in Clause Special Form D, Board Standing Order 15, para 9. The order of cancellation was questioned in appeal, but to no avail. The appellant thereafter came to this Court through W.P.No.2928 of 1981 which, as already stated, was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence appeal.

4. Appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel submitted that the condition imposed clause (9) of the Special Form D. Board Standing Order 15, para 9 was unreasonable would be violative of the rights available to a bona fide purchaser under the Transfer Property Act. The other ground of attack by the learned Counsel for the appellant was the restriction contained in Clause (9) prohibiting the alienation in favour of a non a Harijan was unconstitutional and therefore liable to be struck down.

5. Both the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant need not detain us, as the questions are no longer res integra. far as the submission that the condition of restriction on alienation is violative of provisions of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in Ammal v. Sundararaja Nairdu, A.I.R. 1946 Mad. 52, while dealing with a condition, similar the one contained in Clause (9) in this case, in the Crown Grants Act, 1895 held that though such a condition would be invalid if the grant was made by a private individual, the condition was perfectly valid in the case of a Crown grant. It was held by the Bench that prohibition against alienation was not violative of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court of India also in State of U.P. v. Zahoor Ahmad, A.I.R. 1973 2520, considered a similar argument and repelled the contention identical to the one raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The apex court observed as follows:

“Sec.3 of the Government Grants Act declares the unfettered discretion of the Government impose such conditions and limitations as it thinks fit, no matter what the general law of land be. The meaning of Secs.2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act is that the scope of Act is not limited to affecting the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act only. Government has unfettered discretion to impose any conditions, limitations, or restrictions its grants, and the right, privileges and obligations of the grantee would be regulated according to the terms of the grant, notwithstanding any provisions of any statutory common law.” Both