Seethamma vs The State Of Karnataka

Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 457


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO..........OF 2026
[@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.19635 of 2023]


Seethamma W/o Late Sathyappa
...Appellant

Versus

The State of Karnataka & Ors.

...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Leave granted.
2. Concurrent findings leading to the annulment of a
sale, under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1978’) is challenged
before us. All the authorities and the High Court found that
Section 4 of the Act postulates any transfer without previous
permission of the Government to be null and void.
3. Sri Manjunath Meled, learned Counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.05.07
16:53:40 IST
Reason:
appellant submits that the Act of 1978 is not applicable to the
Page 1 of 5
CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023

subject land. The grant itself was made in the year 1977 and
receipt issued in the year 1981. The first transfer was made
after 15 years and the appellant is a purchaser from the
transferee of the year 1997. Learned counsel for the
appellant relies on Shakuntala v. The State of Karnataka &
1
Others .
4. Sri Avishkar Singhvi, learned Additional Attorney
General for the State relies on Satyan v. Deputy
2
Commissioner & Others , Vivek M. Hinduja & Others v.
3
M. Ashwatha & Ors. and Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika &
4
Another to contend that the delay is only of 9 years and as
2
held in Satyan , an 8 year period cannot said to be fatal to
an action taken under the Act by reason only of delay and
laches, especially considering the beneficial legislation for
ensuring preservation of lands of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
5. On facts suffice it to notice that the original vendor
obtained the land as per Annexure P1, in the year 1977 and
the grant certificate was issued in the year 1981. The grant

1
C.A. Nos. 1061-1063 of 2019
2
(2020) 14 SCC 210
3
(2020) 14 SCC 228
4
(2008) 14 SCC 517
Page 2 of 5
CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023

certificate is issued under Schedule E of the Land Revenue
Code, which prohibits alienation only for a period of 15
years; in the instant case from the year 1981-82. The first
transfer admittedly was made in the year 1997 as is evident
from Annexure P2. In the present case, the proceedings
were initiated in the year 2006-07, after the land came into
the possession of the appellant herein, by a purchase in the
year 2003.
1
6. Shakuntala relied on a number of judgments wherein
this Court had found that even if no limitation is prescribed
in the statute, the party concerned ought to have
approached the competent court or authority within a
reasonable time beyond which no relief could be granted.
2
Satyan was a case in which the grants were made to the
beneficiaries in August 1982 and the transfer was affected in
September 1997, after the 15 year period was over. Therein
the proceedings were initiated on the villagers filing an
application alleging the sale deeds to be illegal. This Court
found that the 8 year period delay in initiating proceedings
is not fatal to the proceedings initiated especially
considering the laudable intention behind the legislation.
Page 3 of 5
CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023

True in the present case also the delay is of 9 years but
however a pertinent distinction in facts have to be
necessarily noticed.
7. Going through the judgments cited by both the
parties, it is evident that proceedings initiated later, were
by the legal representatives of the original vendors. The Act
of 1978 no doubt is a beneficial legislation and seeks to
ensure protection of the lands conceded as grants by the
State to the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes communities, who could be enticed into
parting with their lands on one pretext or the other. The
distinguishing fact in the present case is that the persons
who initiated the proceedings included the sons of the
original grantee, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who
were also parties to the first transfer as evident from
th
Annexure P2. The 4 respondent at the time of the first
th
transfer was aged about 35 years and the 5 respondent was
aged about 25 years. The present case is not one where the
legal representatives, unaware of the earlier grant or the
subsequent transfer, having initiated proceedings after a
long delay, nor is it one of the village community having
Page 4 of 5
CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023

initiated proceedings against the illegal transfers. The
persons who sought invocation of the proceedings under
the Act of 1978 were party to the alienation in the year 1997,
after the 15 year period was over from the original grant of
the year 1977 and the issuance of the certificate in 1981. On
the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to set aside the
orders of the Authorities and the High Court finding the
proceedings to be illegal and we do so.
8.
The above appeal is allowed setting aside the
impugned orders.
9.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.....…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)


..……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
MAY 07, 2026.

Page 5 of 5
CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023