Supreme Court dismissed appeals against a Deputy Commissioner order confirming that land granted in 1957 with a 10-year non-alienation clause vested in the Government due to sale during the restricted period under the 1979 Act.
The appeals were dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(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
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SAT'.-IASIVAM, JJ.) 1
B
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 Bmeritand, assuch,aredismissed.[para3 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 FHighCourt Act, 1979 (inshort the'HighCourt Act'). Challenge in the appeals was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.
}--
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 HNagappaandthreeacresweregiventoBudappa.Thesaid
.,,
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.
__.
~
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
4
noticed that the period would be 30 years and not 12 years as contented.
"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."
KALIYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 5 CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.
-{
3 issues framed by the court
Whether land granted before the 1957 Land Revenue Code with a 10-year non-alienation condition vested in the Government upon alienation during the prohibited period.
Whether the non-alienable period for land grants under the Land Revenue Code remains 10 years or changes to 12 years following the 1979 Act.
Whether the appellate authority correctly held that alienation during the restricted period caused the land to vest with the Government.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Guntaiah and Ors. Vs. Hambamma and Ors.Relied on¶61
[2005] 6 SCC 228 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KALIYAMMA & ORS.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA & ORS.
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT
P. SATHIASIVAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
