Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978:
s. 4 – Prohibition of transfer of granted lands – The grant put a condition of non-alienation of the granted land for a period of 15 years – The granted land transferred to the appellants by the beneficiaries of the grant, after 15 years of the grant – Application alleging that the sale deeds were illegal as they were executed without prior permission of competent authority – Asstt. Commissioner set aside the sale deeds – Order confirmed by Deputy Commissioner in appeal – Order further confirmed in writ petition and writ appeal by the High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Plea of appellants that permission for transfer was not required post the period of 15 years – Held: Appellant throughout having sought to make out a case based on prior permission, cannot take such new plea before Supreme Court – Sub-section (2) of s. 4 puts an absolute ban on transfer after commencement of the Act without prior permission of the Government – Therefore, after a period of 15 years also, prior permission was required – The competent authority had acted within its jurisdiction to nullify the transactions which were contrary to the statutory provisions of s. 4(2) – Delay of 8 years by itself cannot come in the way of the competent authority taking the action, the Act being a beneficial legislation – Karnatka Land Grant Rules, 1969 – r. 9 – Delay/Laches.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 All the orders below are predicated on a reasoning that while the appellant sought to make out a case that permission had been granted, no such permission had actually been granted by the competent authority, and the documents furnished in this behalf were found to be forged and fabricated. There ought to have been full disclosure of documents. The criminal proceedings, however, are still pending qua that aspect. It is not necessary to non-suit the appellant on this ground itself. [Para 25][893-A-B]
1.2 The appellant had throughout sought to make out a case based on prior permission by the competent authority. It was nobody’s case that permission was not required to be obtained. The appellant, faced with a factual situation where the permissions do not exist, now sought to build another bridge to contend that be that as it may, no permission is required. Such a plea cannot be countenanced. At this stage of the civil appeal, without any pleadings being there, it is not even really open to the appellant to have pleaded the interpretation they so sought to plead. This cannot be categorized as a legal plea alone, and that too raised at the fifth level of scrutiny in the hierarchy of proceedings. [Para 26][893-C-D]
1.3 The non-alienation clause existing in the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and incorporated in the grants, was found to be inadequate to protect the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who were given land owing to their ignorance and poverty. Influential and powerful sections of society were stated to be obtaining sales and mortgages for consideration, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes became victims of circumstances. The objective of the State Government in enacting the said Act was to prevent such misuse and, therefore, in categorical terms, transfer with permission was prescribed. This would be de hors the terms of the grant or the said Rules. Thus, whether it was a case where it was within the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years, or the period beyond fifteen
(15) years, such permission would be required. [Para 27] [893-E-G]
1.4 No doubt Rule 9 of the said Rules, enacted under a different enactment, prior to the enactment of the said Act (and thereafter even amended), does contemplate transfer between the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years on certain terms and conditions, which are required to be satisfied by the Deputy Commissioner. There is, in fact, a prohibition in grant of such permission until and unless there is satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner that the alienation is for the purpose of acquiring other land, or for improving the remaining land and that the grantee credits to Government an amount equal to fifty percent of the market value of such land as on the date of sanction of such alienation. Thus, more rigorous terms have been put for transfer within the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years. [Para 28][893-H; 894-A-B]
1.5 The reason for the competent authority to arrive at a decision whether to grant permission or not after the period of fifteen (15) years may or may not be coloured by such considerations. But certainly, he may satisfy himself that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only, who have been allotted the land, are not taken for a ride, and it is possibly in their best interest for recorded reasons that such permission should be granted. The wordings of Section 4(2) of the said Act are quite clear in its terms. [Para 29][894-C-D]
1.6 Section 4 of the Act, dealing with prohibition of transfer of granted land, in sub-section (1), begins with a non obstatnte clause. It is notwithstanding anything in any agreement, contract or instrument, or for that matter in any law. Section 11 of the said Act further enforces this by giving the said Act an overriding effect over any other law. [Para 30][894-E]
1.7 Section 4 is applicable for grants made either before or after the commencement of the Act. The terms of the grant cannot be contravened, but the last part of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act makes any transfer in violation of sub-section (2) also null and void. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act is crisp and clear in its terms, putting an absolute ban on transfer after the commencement of the Act, without previous permission of the Government. Thus, a bare reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that it brooks no two interpretations. After the period of fifteen (15) years also, thus, permission was required to be taken. [Para 31][894-G-H; 895-A]
1.8 The courts below committed no error, and the competent authority has acted within its jurisdiction to nullify the transactions which are contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, and the manner of execution itself raised many doubts. [Para 36][896-E-F]
Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC
517 : [2008] 2 SCR 451 – relied on.
Manchegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 301 : [1984] 3 SCR 502 ; Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 667 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 698 ; Situ Sahu & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2004)
8 SCC 340 : [2004] 3 SCR 504 ; Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. v. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) through
Legal Representatives & Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 527 ; Harishchandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 780 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1111 ; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. (2008)
12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454 ; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya
Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President & Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 430 : [2012] 4 SCR
74 ; Hari Narain v. Badri Das [1964] 2 SCR 203 – referred to.
2. A delay of eight (8) years by itself cannot come in the way of the competent authority taking the action, as limitation principles would not apply. The period of eight (8) years cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community. [Paras 33 and 34][895-G; 896-A-C]
Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 65 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 42
– relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.