Holding

The prohibition on alienation for a specified period is a valid restrictive covenant binding on the grantee, making the sale void, and Rule 43G(4) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 applies.

Summary

The government granted a parcel of land to the husband of the petitioner, a Scheduled Caste member, with a condition that it could not be alienated for fifteen years. The husband sold the land in violation of this condition, and the purchaser later sold it to the appellant. After the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act came into force, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 seeking resumption of the land, alleging the sale was void. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner held the sale null and void and ordered eviction of the appellant; the High Court upheld those orders. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the non‑alienation clause is a valid restrictive covenant, not an unreasonable restriction, and that the sale made in breach of it is void under the Act and the applicable Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 (Rule 43G(4)). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The enforceability of the 15‑year non‑alienation condition imposed on the original grantee under the land grant.
Whether the sale made in breach of that condition is void under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979.
Whether Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, Rule 43G(4) or Rule 43J governs the grant and the consequent restriction.

Subjects

Scheduled CasteScheduled Tribeland grantnon‑alienation conditionrestrictive covenantnullity of saleland revenue rulesresumptionSection 5

Judgment

A CHINDE GOWDA
v.
PUTIAMMA

DECEMBER 14, 2007
B
[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
C belonging to Scheduled Caste-With condition of non-alienation for
15 years-Grantee sold land in violation of the non-alienation
condition-SC and ST Act came inlo force-Wife of grantee filed
application under the Act seeking resumplion ofland on ground that
same was alienated by her late husband in breach of non-alienation
D condition-Authorities concerned held the said sale null and void and
directed restoration ofthe land to wife ofgrantee-Order confirmed
by High Court-On appeal, held: 1mposilion ofcondition ofprohibition
on transfer for particular period did not constitute any unreasonable
restriction on right ofthe grantees to dispose ofgranted lands-Sale
E in violation ofsuch condition rightly held by authorities below as null
and void-Mysore Land Revenue (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
F condition that the same shall not be alienated for a period of 15
years., Respondent No.1 's husband, however, in violation of the 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
G
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
H 932
CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTTAMMA 933

of the said non-alienation condition. The Asst. Commissioner held A
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' B
null and void on application of sub-rule (4) ofRule43-G of Mysore
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 C
the grant of land was under Rule 43-G and not under Rule 43-J.
Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

a
HELD : 1.1. The prohibition regarding alienation is restrictive D
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 of sale is concerned, It was E
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
r statutory provisions but if the grant by itself specifically says that
there shall not be any alienation by the grantee for a period of 15 F
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 of the condition. [Para 6] [936-D-G]

1.2. The prohibition on transfer was not for an indefinite period G
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
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A 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 of the condition of prohibition on transfor for
a particular period could not, therefore, be considered to constitute
B any unreasonable restriction on the right of the grantees to dispose
of the granted lands. The imposition of such a condition 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,
C relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7039 of
2001.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.10.1999 of the High
D 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.
E
The Judgment of the 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
F of the 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.

G
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<:cified time
H and subject to the condition that on payment thereof the grant shall be
CHINDEGOWDA v. PUTTAMMA [PASAYAT,J.] 935

confinned in his favour. It transpires from the impugned orders of the A
authorities below that because of poverty the grantee could not make
payment of the upset price in time and the same was, therefore, made
payable in three equal instalments by order dated 24.8.1961. On payment
of the said price, the temporary grant of the land was confinned in his
favour by order dated 10.10.1962 imposing the condition that the same B
shall not be alienated by him for a period of 15 years. In violation of this
condition the said land was sold by the grantee on 16.2.1965 to one
Manche Gowda whose children, in tum, sold the same to appellant on
22.5.1972.
After the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of C
Transfer of Certain Lands Act (the "Act in short) came into force, R-1
made his application to Respondent No. 2 Asst. Commissioner seeking
resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the Act on the ground
that the same had been alienated by her late husband in breach of the
said non-alienation condition. On enquiry, the order dated 19. 7.1993 was D
passed by the Asst. Commissioner holding the said sale null and void and
directing appellant's eviction from the land for its restoration to Respondent
No. 1, since her husband grantee was undisputedly a member belonging
to the Scheduled Caste. On appeal by the appellant, the said order of
Asst. Commissioner came to be confinned by respondent No.3 Deputy E
Commissioner by his order dated 13.3.1995. The appellant, therefore,
sought for quashing of both orders on the ground that both the authorities
below have erred in declaring null and void the said sale dated 16.2.1965
made by the grantee in favour of Manche Gowda on application of sub-
r rule (4) of Rule 43-G of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, F
1960.
4. The stand of the appellant before the High Court was that Rule
43 G(4) was inapplicable in respect of the said granted land, as the correct
rule applicable was sub-rule (J) of Rule 43. lt was stated that the Deputy
Commissioner had indicated that the land was initially granted on the basis G
of temporary lease which came to be confinned by a subsequent order
in favour of the lessee. Since the initial grant was on lease basis which
came to be confinned by a subsequent order, the correct Rule applicable
in that event is Rule 43(1) and not Rule 43G(4). It was further canvassed
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A that once the grant was under Rule 43(1) any condition imposing ban on
alienation thereof will be inopeative and unenforceable. The stand of the
State Government was that the grant of land in favour of respondent's
late husband was made not under Rule 43-J but it was in fact under Rule
43-G. The High Court held the authorities were right in holding that the
B grant ofland was W1der Rule 43-G and not W1der Rule 43-J. Accordingly,
the writ petition was dismissed. Before the Division Bench of the High
Court, the stand taken before the learned Single Judge was reiterated but
was rejected.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
C submitted that the correct Rule is Rule 43-J and not 43 (G) (4). Therefore
it is submitted that a different scheme is applicable.
6. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Guntaiiah & Ors.
v. Hambamma & Ors., [2005] 6 SCC 228. In para 14 it was stated as
D follows:
"14. It is also pertinent to note that the prohibition regarding
alienation is a restrictive 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
E 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 of sale is concerned, it was entered into between the
Government and the grantee and at that time the third-party

F
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 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 of the
G condition. The Full Bench seriously erred in holding that the land
was granted W1der Rule 43-J and that the Authorities were not
empowered to impose any conditions regarding alienation without '
adverting to Section 4 of Act 2 of 1979. These lands were given
to landless persons almost free of cost and it was done as a social
H welfare measure to improve the conditions of poor landless
CHINDEGOWDA v. PUTTAMMA [PASAYAT,J.] 937

persons. When these lands were purchased by third parties taking A
·"
advantage of illiteracy and poverty of the grantees, Act 2 of 1979
was passed with a view to retrieve these lands from the third-party
purchasers. When Act 2 of 1979 was challenged, this Court
observed in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka, (SCC pp.
310-11, para 17) B
"17. Granted lands were intended for the benefit and
enjoyment of the original grantees who happen to belong to
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. At the time of
the grant, a condition had been imposed for protecting the
interests of the original grantees in the granted lands by c
restricting the transfer of the same. The condition regarding the
prohibition on transfer of such granted lands for a specified
period, was imposed by virtue of the specific term in rl1e grant
itself or by reason of any law, rule or regulation governing such
grant. It was undoubtedly open to the grantor at the time of D
granting lands to the original grantees to stipulate such a
condition the condition being a term of the grant itself; and the
condition was imposed in the interests of the grantee. Except
on the basis of such a condition the grantor might not have
made any such grant at all. The condition imposed against the E
transfer for a particular period of such granted lands which
were granted essentially for the benefit of the grantees cannot
be said to constitute any unreasonable restriction. The granted
lands were not in the nature of properties acquired and held
by the grantees in the sense of acquisition, or holding of F
property within the meaning of Article 19(1 )(f) of the
Constitution. It was a case of a grant by the owner of the land
to the grantee for the possession and enjoyment of the granted
lands by the grantees and the prohibition on transfer of such
granted lands for the specified period was an essential term G
or condition on the basis of which the grant was made. It has
t to be pointed out that 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 H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A the prohibition was to remain operative. Experience had shown
that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes to whom the lands were granted were, because of their
poverty, lack of education and general backwardness,
exploited by various persons who could and would take
B advantage of the sad plight of these poor persons for depriving
them of their lands. The imposition of the condition of
prohibition on transfer for a particular period could not,
therefore, be considered to constitute any unreasonable
restriction on the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted
c lands. The imposition of such a condition on prohibition in the
very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and legal."
7. In view of the aforesaid decision, this appeal is without merit and
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
D B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

/;

•
' <
>
'I-
~