CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTIAMMA

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 932

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTIAMMA.pdf

Judgment text

CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTIAMMA DECEMBER 14, 2007 [DR ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP. SATHASIVAM,JJ. ] Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act-s. 5---Grant of Government land to person belonging to Scheduled Caste-With condition ofnon-alienation for 15 years-Grantee sold land in violation of the non-alienation condition-SC and ST Act came inlo force-Wife ofgrantee filed application under the Act seeking resumplion ofland on ground that same was alienated by her late husband in breach ofnon-alienation condition-Authorities concerned heldthe saidsale null and void and directed restoration ofthe land to wife ofgrantee-Order confirmed by High Court-On appeal, held: 1mposilion ofcondition ofprohibition on transferfor particular period did not constitute any unreasonable restriction on right ofthe grantees to dispose ofgranted lands-Sale in violation ofsuch condition rightly held by authorities below as null andvoid-Mysore LandRevenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960---rr.

43(](4) & 43(1). Government land was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 's husband, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, albeit with the condition that the same shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. , Respondent No. 1's husband, however, in violation ofthe said condition, sold the said land to one 'M' whose children, in turn, sold the same to appellant. After the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act came into force, Respondent No. 1 filed application before Respondent No. 2 Asst. Commissioner seeking resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the Ad on the ground that the same was alienated by her late husband in breach CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTTAMMA 933 ofthe said non-alienation condition. The Asst. Commissioner held the said sale null and void and directed appellant's eviction from the land for its restoration to Respondent No. 1. The order was confirmed by respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner.

Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court contending that the authorities below declared the sale made in favour of'M' null and void on application ofsub-rule (4) ofRule43-G ofMysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, but Rule 43G(4) was inapplicable and the correct rule applicable in respect of the said granted land was sub-rule (J) of Rule 43. High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the authorities were right in holding that the grant of land was under Rule 43-G and not under Rule 43-J. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. 1. The prohibition regarding alienation is arestrictive covenant binding on the grantee. The grantee is not challenging that condition. In all these proceedings, challenge is made by the third party who purchased the land from the grantee. The third party is not entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the grantor to the grantee were void.

As far as the contract ofsale is concerned, It was entered into between the Government and the grantee and at that time the third-party purchaser had no interest in such transaction. Of course, he would be entitled to challenge the violation of any statutory provisions but ifthe grant by itself specifically says that r there shall not be any alienation by the grantee for a period of 15 years, that is binding on the grantee so long as he does not challenge that clause, more so when he purchased the land, in spite of being aware ofthe condition. [Para 6] [936-D-G] 1. 2. The prohibition on transfer was not for an indefinite period or perpetual. It was only for a particular period, the object being that the grantees should enjoy the granted lands themselves at least for the period during which the prohibition was to remain operative. Experience has shown that persons belonging to Sd. i! duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to whom the lands were grant1.

:d were, because of their poverty, lack of education and general backwardness, exploited by various persons who could and would take advantage of the sad plight of these poor persons for depriving them of their lands. The imposition ofthe condition ofprohibition on transfor for a particular period could not, therefore, be considered to constitute any unreasonable restriction on the right of the grantees to dispose ofthe granted lands. The imposition ofsuch acondition on prohibition in the very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and legal. [Para 6] [937-G-H; 938-A-C] Guntaiiah &. Ors. v. Hambamma & Ors. , [2005] 6 SCC 228, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2001. From the final Judgment and Order dated 8. 10. 1999 of the High Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2787 of1999. R. S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, J. K. Nayyar and P. P. Singh for the Appellant. K. Sarada for the Respondent.

The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench ofthe Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed und1~r Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act (in short the 'High Court Act'). Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 180897/95 dated 9. 9. 1998. 3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:- The Government land measuring 30 guntas in extent in Sy. No. 96/12 ofHeggur village, TN. Pura Taluk was originally granted temporarily to R-1 's husband Lingaiah on 26. 9. 1959 for upset price at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre allowing him to pay the same within the sp < 'I- ~