1. Grant of government land to a member of a depressed class — subsequent alienation to a third party — challenge under Revenue Code and SC/ST land transfer laws. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 925
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
R. CHANDEVARAPPA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeals No. 8509 of 1995 with Nos. 8507, 8508 and 8510 of 1995 {From the Judgment and Order dated 23-6-1989 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 950 of 1989}
Decided on 8-9-1995
Advocates appeared:
R.P. Wadhwani, Advocate, for the Appellants; M. Veerappa, Ms Mridula Ray Bhardwaj and Dr S. Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Advocates:
M.VIRAPPA, MRIDULA RAY BHARDVAJ, R.P.VADHVANI, S.BHARADVAJ
M.VIRAPPA, MRIDULA RAY BHARDVAJ, R.P.VADHVANI, S.BHARADVAJ
Important Points
Alienation of land assigned to Scheduled Castes/Tribes for economic empowerment is void if it violates statutory prohibitions and public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Possession via a void derivative title does not establish adverse possession against the State unless a hostile claim is specifically pleaded.
Subject
Land Law - Alienation of Assigned Lands
Act Referred
Headnote
Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978 - Constitution of India - Article 39(b) - Articles 14, 21, 38, 39 and 46 - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23 - Land - Purchased Property - Possession Of Tittle - Appellants predecessor-in-title, Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah was granted an extent of two acres of land in government vacant land bearing Survey No. 6 of Village - Appellant claimed to have purchased property from sons and widow of assignee - On a representation made by one of sons to Assistant Commissioner contending that alienation was in violation of Act, sale was set aside as violative of Revenue Code, Rule 43(5) - Appellant carried matter in appeal – Held, Appellant came into possession by a derivative title from original grantee - It is seen that original grantee has no right to alienate land - Therefore, having come into possession under colour of title from original grantee, if appellant intends to plead adverse possession as against State, he must disclaim his title and plead his hostile claim to knowledge of State and that State had not taken any action thereon within prescribed period - Thereby, appellants possession would become adverse - No such stand was taken nor evidence has been adduced in this behalf - Court has held that any alienation made contrary to Act and public policy is not valid - In that behalf, this Court had adverted in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of judgment as to when adverse possession of purchasers arises against depressed classes - In this case court is not concerned with situation as it had arisen in that case – Appeal Dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Appellant’s predecessor was granted two acres and alienation was proscribed for a period under the Act; sale to the appellant was challenged as violative of the prohibition and Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code. (!) (!) - The Court held that the alienation was void as contrary to the Act and public policy, and that the State retains title; adverse possession arguments were not established due to lack of pleadings and the original grantee having no right to alienate. (!) (!) (!) - The prohibition on alienation is part of a constitutional policy of economic empowerment under Articles 14, 21, 38, 39 and 46; the sale cannot be validated under Section 23 of the Contract Act. (!) (!) - Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code absolutely prohibits alienation of assigned lands; the Division Bench decision aligning with this view was affirmed. (!) - The appeals were dismissed without costs. (!) - Mention of related precedent: Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and K.T. Huchegowda v. Dy. Commr. cited in arguments. (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of alienation after initial prohibition period — retrospective application of the Act — perfection of title through adverse possession. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Land assignment to depressed classes aims for economic empowerment under Articles 38, 39, and 46 — prohibition of alienation effectuates this constitutional policy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Alienation of assigned lands in violation of statutory rules and constitutional policy of economic empowerment is void as opposed to public policy under Section 23, Contract Act. (Para 10 , 12 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 13 )
6. Is the alienation of land assigned to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes valid if it violates statutory prohibitions?
No. Such alienation is opposed to public policy and the constitutional scheme of economic empowerment under Articles 14, 21, 38, 39, and 46, rendering the sale void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. (Para 8 , 10 )
7. Can a purchaser of assigned land claim title through adverse possession against the State?
Yes, but the claimant must disclaim the derivative title from the original grantee and specifically plead a hostile claim to the knowledge of the State. (Para 11 )
8. What is the legal objective behind prohibiting the alienation of lands assigned to weaker sections?
The objective is to ensure the assignee remains in possession for personal cultivation across generations, augmenting their economic status and securing economic justice as envisaged in the Constitution. (Para 6 , 9 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The facts in the Appeal No. 8507 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11571 of 1989 are sufficient to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment, since common question of law arises for decision.
3. The appellants predecessor-in-title, Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah was granted on 16-11-1951 an extent of two acres of land in government vacant land bearing Survey No. 6 of Beekanahalli Village, Chikmangalur Taluk and District. The appellant claimed to have purchased the property from the sons and widow of the assignee on 16-10-1968. On a representation made by one of the sons on 27-2-1987 to the Assistant Commissioner contending that the alienation was in violation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978, the sale was set aside as violative of the Revenue Code, Rule 43(5). The appellant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority by its order dated 17-11-1987 confirmed the same under Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code. In the writ petition and writ appeal, it was confirmed. Thus the appeal against the order of the Division Bench dated 23-6-1989 made in WA No. 950 of 1989 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
4. Shri Ravi P. Wadhwani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has strenuously contended, after good preparation that under the grant initially made to Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah, the prohibition for alienation was only for ten years and, therefore, by necessary implication the grantee thereafter, was free to alienate the land. The alienation was made 17 years after the grant. Therefore, the tribunals and the High Court were not justified in setting aside the alienation. It is also contended that the Act has no retrospective operation and the alienation made prior to the Act has come into force cannot be set aside under the Act. Further submission is that in any event the appellant having remained in uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years he had perfected his title by adverse possession. This contention was specifically raised before the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority. Therefore, the matter needs to be examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in K.T. Huchegowda v. Dy. Commr. {(1994) 3 SCC 536}
5. Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel appearing for the State, contended that the cultivation chit given to the original assignee was only for personal cultivation subject to the condition that he will be eligible to encumber the land only to improve the assigned land. But the prohibition for alienation of assigned land always remained. The title always remained with the Government. Therefore, the limitation would not run against the Government when the land was sold. Since it is in contravention of Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code, the appellant does not get any title to the land. The question of adverse possession does not arise as against the State since it was not pleaded that the appellant had asserted his title against the State adversely. Therefore, the ratio in the above case has no application and that the matter need not be remitted for consideration.
6. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, the first question that arises for determination is what would be the nature of the right given to the assignee Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah. Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India envisages that the State shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. Admittedly, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the weaker sections of the society who have been deprived of their economic status by obnoxious practice of untouchability and the tribes living in the forest area far away from the civilised social life. To augment their economic status and to bring them on a par into the mainstream of
