Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
GURUPUTRAPPA MALLAPPA HARKUNI ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TAHSILDAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992
BENCH:
MOHAN, S. (J)
BENCH:
MOHAN, S. (J)
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1993 AIR 98 1992 SCR (3) 786
1993 SCC Supl. (1) 496 JT 1992 (4) 476
1992 SCALE (2)153
ACT:
Karnataka Village Office Abolition Act, 1961-Section
5(3)-Amendment Act 13 of 1978-Alienation of regranted land-
Prohibition for 15 years w.e.f. 7.8.1978-Alienation on
4.12.1982-Void.
C.A. No. 3231/1991
HEADNOTE:
The land bearing survey No. 187/2 measuring an extent
of 18.21 acres was Patilki Inam Land. The land was resumed
to the Government under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village
Offices Abolition Act 1961 with effect from 1.2.1963.
On 6.2.1968, the watan land-holder filed an application
for regrant of land. He also paid an amount equal to 3
times the assessment and health cess.
The Assistant Commissioner directed the regrant on
15.4.1968. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the
Tahsildar for information and necessary action.
The watan land-holder sought sanction to alienate land
as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act. He also
deposited an amount equal to 15 times the assessment of land
as required.
The Assistant Commissioner on 28.8.1968 granted the
sanction.
Section 5(3) of the Act was amended by Karnataka Act 13
of 1978. The amended section prohibited the alienation of
regranted land for a period of 15 years from the date of
commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1978.
On the strength of the permission dated 28.8.68, the
watan land-holder sold away the property in parcels to three
persons. The appellant
787
purchased 5 acres on 4.12.1982.
The Tahsildar issued a notice to the appellant as to
why action should not be taken against him for eviction
since the land in question had been purchased in
contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The appellant explained that in view of the order
granting sanction to the watan land-holder, the land-holder
was entitled to alienate the same; that when such a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
permission was granted, the land ceased to be governed by
the provisions of the Act; and that the order of sanction
mentioned that the land in question was transferable.
Rejecting the explanation, the Tahsildar ordered that
possession of the land be taken over by the Government.
Against the order of the Tahsildar, the appellant filed
a writ petition before the High Court.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding
that if the regranted land had not been alienated with prior
permission before 7.8.1978, it could not be alienated for a
period of 15 years after 7.8.1978.
An appeal was preferred to the Division Bench of the
High Court, which was also dismissed.
Hence this appeal by special leave contending that by
order dated 28.8.1968 the watan land-holder was granted
sanction to alienate the lands; and that merely because
Section 5(3) of the Act came to be amended in 1978 that
would not, in any manner, affect the sanction already
granted.
The respondent-State submitted that though the sanction
was granted to alienate the lands, the alienation did not
take place prior to 7.8.1978; that the statutory prohibition
contained under Section 5(3) would squarely apply; that it
could not be alienated for a period of 15 years after
7.8.1978; and that as the alienation took place on
4.12.1982, long after the amended Section 5(3) had come into
force, such an alienation was null and void.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Abolition
Act, 1961
788
was amended by Karnataka Act 13 of 1978. There is a clear
prohibition under the amended provision that the regranted
land shall not be transferable for a period of 15 years from
the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act
1978. The effect of which is, for period of 15 years from
7.8.1978, the Statutory bar against alienation would
operate. [791C]
Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka and others,
(1981)1 ‘Karnataka Law Journal Page 1, approved.
State of Karnataka and Anr. v. G. Seenappa and Anr.
etc. etc., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14627 of 1985
etc. D/-27.2.1992 and Rehman Khan and Others v. State of
Karnataka, C.A. Nos. 3104-13 of 1981, referred to
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3231 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.6.1990 of the
Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 2700 of 1985.
AND
Civil Appeal Nos. 4418-19 of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1982 of the
Karnataka High Court in W.P. Nos. 8744 & 8745 of 1980.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 1609-1610 and 1616-1617 of 1986, 4385/85,
3232- 33/91, 3576 and 2289 of 1984.
R.S. Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja and Ms. Sushila for the
Appellant in C.A. Nos. 3231 and 3232-33 of 1991.
M. Veerappa for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 4418-19/90.
M. Veerappa for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 3231 and
3232-33 of 1991.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
MOHAN, J. In all these appeals the common question of
law which arises is the scope of Section 5(3), as amended,
of Karnataka Village
789
Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). Hence the appeals are dealt with under a common
judgment.
It is enough if we note the facts briefly in Civil
Appeal No. 3231 of 1991. The land bearing Survey No. 187/2
measuring an extent of 13.21 acres of Anigaol village was
Patilki Inam Land. The land was resumed to the Government
under Section 4 of the Act with effect from Ist February,
1963. Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil of Anigol was the
holder of these watan lands. He filed an application dated
6.2.1968 for regrant of land. He also paid an amount equal
to 3 times the assessment and health cess. The Assistant
Commissioner Sailhongal Division directed the regrant by an
order dated 15.4.1968. Thereafter the papers were forwarded
to the Tahsildar of Sampagaon for information and necessary
action.
Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil sought sanction to
alienate land as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act as
it stood then. He also deposited an amount equal to 15
times the assessment of land as required. The Assistant
Commissioner by his order dated 28.8.1968 granted the
sanction.
In the year 1978, by Karnataka Act 13 of 1978 Section
5(3) of the Act was amended. The amended section prohibited
the alienation of regranted land for a period of 15 years
from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment
Act of 1978.
On the strength of the permission dated 28.8.68, N.R.
Patil, the holder, sold away the property in parcels to
three persons. An extent of 5 acres came to be purchased by
the appellant on 4.12.82. The Tahsildar Sailhongal issued a
notice to the appellant as to why action should not be taken
against him for eviction since the land in question had been
purchased in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The appellant explained that in view of the order granting
sanction to the holder of the land the holder was entitled
to alienate the same. Once such a permission was granted
the land ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Act.
In any event, the order of sanction mentioned that the land
in question was transferable.
This explanation was rejected by the Tehsildar who, by
his order dated 23.6.1984 held that the appellant was liable
to be evicted. Accord-
790
ingly, he ordered that possession of the land be taken over
by the Government free from encumbraces, if any. Thereupon
the appellant moved the High Court of Karnataka by way of
W.P. No. 11238 of 1984.
The learned Single Judge held that if the regranted
land had not been alienated with prior permission before
7.8.1978, it could not be alienated for a period of 15 years
after 7.8.1978. That is the clear intention of the
Amendment Act of 1978. On this line of reasoning he
dismissed the writ petition. An appeal was preferred to the
Division Bench in W.A.NO. 2700 of 1985 unsucessfully. It is
under these circumstances, special leave to appeal was
preferred. Leave was granted by an order dated 22.8.91
The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant is
that by order dated 28.8.68 the holder of Ex.Patilki watan
lands was granted santion to alienate the lands. Such
sanction is complete in every respect. Merely because
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
Section 5(3) of the Act came to be amended in 1978 that will
not, in any manner, affect the sanction already granted. It
matters little when the alienation actually took place even
within a prohibited period of 15 years from 1978.
The learned counsel for the State would submit that it
is true by an order dated 28.8.1968 that sanction was
granted to alienate the lands. However, if the alienation
had not taken place on the strength of that sanction prior
to 7.8.1978, the statutory prohibition contained under
Section 5(3) will squarely apply. In other words, it could
not be alienated for a period of 15 years after 7.8.1978.
In this case, the alienation took place on 4.12.1982 long
after the amended Section 5(3) had come into force.
Therefore, such an alienation is null and void. As a matter
of fact, the question is no longer res integra. A Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Lakshmana Gowda v.
State of karnataka and others, (1981) 1 Karnataka Law
Journal Page 1, categorically ruled that such alienations
are null and void. Several special leave petitions
preferred by the State and parties assailing that judgment
have been dismissed. The same is the position here.
On a careful consideration of the above submissions, we
hold that the contention advanced on behalf of the State
deserves to be accepted. Section 5(3) of the Amendment Act,
1978, reads as follows:
791
"5(3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the
land, as the case may be, re-granted under sub-
section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise
than by partition among members of Hindu joint
family for a period of 15 years from the date of
commencement of Section 1 of the Karanataka Village
Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978)."
Though the sanction to alienate was granted on
28.8.1968 yet the alienation took place on 4.12.82. In the
meanwhile, the above amendment, namely, section 5(3) had
come to be introduced by Karnataka Act 13 of 1978. There is
a clear prohibition under the above provision that the
regranted land shall not be transferable for a period of 15
years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the
Amendment Act 1978. The effect of which is, for a period of
15 years from 7.8.1978, the statutory bar against alienation
would operate. In fact, in Lakshmana Gowda (supra), in
paragraph 87 at page 18 it is stated thus:
"87. In the light of the above principles of
statutory construction, we hold that sub-sec. (4)
of S.5 of the Principal Act should be construed as
being applicable only to transfers made sub-sequent
to 7.8.1978 and not to transfers which had taken
place prior to that date and sub-sec. (3) occurring
in that section should be construed as having
reference to amended sub-sec. (3) and not to
original sub-sec. (3) of that Section."
The High Court has laid down the correct legal
position. This line of reasoning has been approved in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14627 of 1985 etc. in
State of Karnataka and Anr. v. G.Seenappa and Anr. etc. etc.
which were dismissed by an order of this court on 27.2.1992.
Again in Rehman Khan and others v. State of Karnataka (C.A.
Nos. 3104-13 of 1981) this Court upheld the ruling of
Lakshman Gowda’s case (supra). Thus, we conclude that the
High Court is right. No interference is called for.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order
as to costs.
V.P.R. Appeals dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
792