High CourtDivision Bench2008-01-03Appeals dismissed

KALIYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:7875-7876 of 2001

Neutral Citation:[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Satish Sivam
Judgment Date: 2008-01-03
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kaliyamma and Ors.

Respondents

Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Santha Kumar Mahale
• Rajesh Mahale
• P. Narasimhan

Counsels for Respondents

• D. N. Goburdhan
• Pinky Anand
• Sanjay R. Hegde
• Amit Kr. Chawla

Case Synopsis & Summary

Eight acres of land in Survey No.59 were granted in 1957 to Rangappa and Nagappa, members of a joint family. The land later passed through transactions: Budappa sold three acres to Thippreeranna in 1965, the remaining five acres were acquired by the vendee in 1966, and Thippreeranna’s heirs sold eight acres in 1981 to Devraj, whose heirs—appellants herein—are the petitioners. With the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 (Act) coming into force on 1.1.1979, the heirs of the grantees sought declarations that the subsequent transfers were null and void and restoration of possession. The Assistant Commissioner held that Form I grants were to general category and Form II to depressed classes; the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal, holding that the grant in 1957 was under the Land Revenue Code and included a ten-year non-alienable period; the alienation during that period caused the land to vest in the Government. The High Court dismissed writ petitions and appeals. The appellants argued the grant was Form I (not within the depressed class) and that possession post-1979 could yield adverse possession; the respondents contended they were second purchasers and that the non-alienable period remained the same in both Forms. The Court ultimately dismisses the appeals, citing precedent (Guntaiah v. Hambamma) to uphold vesting in Government. No costs awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Karnataka Land Revenue CodeKarnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979Rule 43-J (Rules of 1960)Rule 43-G (Rules of 1960)Clause (4) of Rule 43-GSection 5A of the ActSection 5(1)(b) of the ActSection 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1979

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Nullity of transfers made in contravention of statutory prohibitions under the Act; Adherence to Form-based classifications (Form I vs Form II) and their applicability to depressed class status.
Sale or transfer during a non-alienable period leading to vesting of land in the Government; Pre-Act grants tested under Land Revenue Code can limit possession rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the grant was made in Form I (general category) and thus not within the depressed class category under the 1979 Act. They argued that, since they possessed the land for more than 12 years from the Act’s coming into force (1.1.1979), they had perfected title by adverse possession. They asserted the grant was pre-Act and that the ten-year non-alienable period and the Form I/II delineation did not divest rights already acquired; they sought restoration of possession to the grantee or his heirs and questioned the Deputy Commissioner’s interpretation that the grant in 1957 was subject to vesting in Government. The appellants urged the need to examine heirs prior to restoration and argued that the pre-1979 grant should be treated under the Land Revenue Code’s regime.” ,

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the Deputy Commissioner and High Court orders, contending that the appellants were not the first purchasers but the second purchasers; they argued that in both Form I and Form II the non-alienable period remained the same and that the alienation occurred during the non-alienable period, causing the land to vest in the Government; they asserted the Act’s prohibitions apply to such transfers and that the appellate orders were correctly decided. They maintained that the grant should be treated as under the Land Revenue Code with a limited possession right, and the land cannot be restored to the appellants or their heirs after alienation within the non-alienable period.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Guntaiah and Ors. v. Hambamma and Ors.	[2005] 6 SCC 228	Positive	Cited with approval as supporting the view that restrictions on alienation under the Karnataka Rules cannot apply to pre-Act grants; the Full Bench reasoning is used to justify vesting provisions when alienation occurs during the non-alienable period.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against KALIYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

-~ 1 (2008] 1 S.C.R. 1 ## KALIYAMMA & ORS. A \/. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURG,A, DISTT. & ORS. (C.A. Nos.7875-76 of 2001) JANUARY 3, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SAT'.-IASIVAM, JJ.) _Ke.1rnataka Land Revenue Cod'd:_ - _Grant of I.and Grantee alienating lemd during nonalienable period_ - _HELD: Appt7flate authority rightly held that land vested in Government_ - _Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition ofTransf'erofCertain Lands) Act, 1979._ The suit land admeasuring 8 acres was granted in favour of 'N' and 'R', the two brothers of a joint family, in '>rfhe year 1957. The l;aid land was later sold to one 'T' in the years 1965 and 1966. The transferee further alienated, the suit land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest 'of the appellants in the year 1981. Meanwhile the Karnat:aka Scheduled Castes and thie Scheduled Tribes (Prohi~..>ition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 came int~ force and the heirs of 'N' and 'R', the original grantees,, filed an application for declaration that the sale' of the suit land V\qas null and void and the possession be re~;tored to them. Since the Assistant Commissioner held against them, they filed an appeal before the Deputy 'Commissioner, who allowed the appeal. The w1rit petition as also the writ appeal of the appellants having been dismissed by the High Court, they filed the instant appeals. C D E F G > ~ Dismissing_ the appeals, the Court HELD: In view of the findings of the appellate authority that the grant was made in 1957 under the Land 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A **Revenue Code and the right of possession in respect of the grantee was limited as there was a condition not to alienate the land for a period of 10 years and since the land was alienated during the non-alienable period, the land vested with the Government, the appeals are without** B **[merit ][and, as ][such, ][are ][dismissed. ][[para ][3 and 9] ] [3-F, G; 5-0]** ) _Guntaiah and_ Ors. Vs. _Hambamma and_ Ors. **[2005] 6 sec 228 - relied on.** c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7875-7876 of 2001. From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.4.200 and 1.12.2000 of the High Court iof Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 7705/1999 and Review Petition No. 997/2000 respectively. D Santha Kumar Mahale, Rajesh Mahale and P. Narasimhan, for the Appellants. .. D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Sanjay R. Hegde andAmit Kr. Chawla for the Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka F[High ][Court ][Act, ][1979 ][(in ][short ][the ]['High ][Court Act'). Challenge ] in the appeals was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. }-- 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Eight acres of land in Survey No.59 were granted to two G persons namely Rangappa and Nagappa sons of Kariyappa. According to the appellants, the said Nagappa and Rangappa formed a joint family with one Budappa and in a partition, out of eight acres of joint family lands, five acres were given to H[Nagappa ][and ][three ][acres ][were ][given ][to ][Budappa. ][The ][said ] .,, KALIYAMMA & ORS. _v._ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 3 ~ _-1_ ~ Budappa sold three acres of land to one Thippreeranna by A registered sale deed dated 3.2.1965 and remaining five acres of Nagappa were acquired by the vendee in the Court auction on 15.8.1966. Aforesaid Thippreeranna sold eight acres of land under the registered sale deed dated 23.2.1981 in favour of Devraj and the appellants herein are his legal heirs. The 8 Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 (in short the 'Act') came into force with effect from 1.1.1979. One Rangaswamy claiming to be the son of grantee Rangappa and one Sanna Karriyamma claiming to be the legal representative of Nagappa filed c application for declaration that the sale was null and void and restoration of possession from the purchaser before the Assistant Commissioner Chitradurga Sub Division. These applications were clubbed and enquiry was conducted. The Assistant Commissioner came to hold that when D the grant was in favour of general category, the allotment was in Form-I and when it is in the name of persons belonging to the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, it is in Form II. __. 3. It was the stand of the appellants that the grant was E made in Form I and, therefore, the land will not come within the purview of the depressed class category and would be under the general category. Therefore, it was submitted that since they were in possession for more than 12 years from the date the Act came into force they have perfected the title by adverse possession. Legal representatives of the grantee filed appeal F under Section 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The said Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that in these cases grant has been made during 1957 under the Land Revenue Code and the right of possession in respect of the grantee is limited. G It was noticed that there was a condition not to alienate the land in question for a period of 10 years. In these cases the alienation took place much before completion of the ten years' period: Since the land was alienated during the non-alienable period, the land vested with the Government. It was also H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. 4 noticed that the period would be 30 years and not 12 years as contented. 4. The matter was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition but _inter alia_ directed as follows: "Whether respondents 2 & 3 have been the legal heirs of the grantee either as sons or adopted sons or in any manner under the law. That question has yet to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner when he has to restore the land to the grantee or his heirs in pursuance of the appellate order. Before actual delivering and restoring possession, the Assistant Commissioner should examine this question and if grantee or heirs are found in possession, the possession has to be restored to them. But if it is not practicable and possible to restore possession of the granted land to the grantee or his heirs under Section 5(1 )(b) later part will automatically stand vested in the Government." 5. The matter was carried in writ appeal. As noted above, the same was dismissed by the impugned order. 6. The stand taken before the High Court essentially was that the land was granted under the non-depressed class category and, therefore, the period is 12 years to substantiate the plea about adverse possession. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the High Court which held that the appellants were not the first purchasers, they in fact are the second purchaser, and in both Forms 1 and Form 2 the non-alienable period is the same. 8. Above being the position there is no merit in these appeals. Similar issues came up for consideration before this Court in _Guntaiah and_ Ors. v. _Hambamma and_ Ors. [2005 (6) SCC 228]. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it was _inter a/ia_ observed as follows: KALIYAMMA & ORS. _v._ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 5 -{ "The finding of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court is that if the grant is made under Rule 43-J, there could not have been any condition restricting the alienation and if at all there were any such conditions they are null and void. This view has been taken for the reason that conditions restricting alienations are given under clause (4) of Rule 43-G and these provisions would apply to grant of lands made under the preceding rules and not apply to Rule 43J which comes after Rule 43-G of the Rules of 1960. This view has been taken based on the title/marginal note of Rule 43-G. The Full Bench was also of the view that under Rule 43-J, it is not stated that ther(;? shall be any conditions prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the Court held that Authorities were not empowered to impose any such conditions." 9. In view of what has been stated above the inevitable conclusion is that the appeals are without merit, deserve dismissal, which we direct. There will be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeals dismissed.