Holding

The plea of adverse possession is not available to the purchaser because the grant conveyed only possession for cultivation for a limited period, making the applicable limitation period thirty years.

Summary

The dispute concerned a 2‑acre agricultural plot allotted by the Karnataka Government to Smt. Munemma on 8 January 1957 with a condition prohibiting alienation for fifteen years. Her son, Gopalappa, purchased the land on 20 December 1968, in contravention of that condition. After the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force, Smt. Munemma sought resumption of the land, and the revenue authorities initially allowed it, but the purchaser later relied on adverse possession. The Karnataka High Court held that the purchaser could not invoke adverse possession because the original grant conveyed only possession for cultivation, not absolute title, and therefore the applicable limitation period was thirty years, not twelve. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the plea of adverse possession was unavailable to the purchaser.

Issues considered

Whether a purchaser of land granted under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 can claim title by adverse possession.
What limitation period applies to adverse possession of land granted for cultivation for a limited period – twelve years or thirty years.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

adverse possessionprohibition of transfergranted landlimitation periodscheduled castes and scheduled tribesland grantresumption of landnullity of transfer

Judgment

[2011) 9 S.C.R. 136
-\.

A G. KRISHNAREDDY
v.
SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4255 of 2002)
JULY 18, 2011 r
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.)

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
c (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978:
ss. 4 and 5 - Land granted for 15 years for cultivation by
the State Government, purchased within the prohibited period
- After coming into force of the Act, application by grantee
..
for resumption of the land - Plea of adverse possession >
D raised by purchaser- HELD: High Court has rightly held that
the plea of adverse possession was not available to the
purchaser.
Government grant of agricultural land - Land purchased
E within the period of prohibition - After coming into force of the
Act, application for resumption of the land filed by grantee -
Plea of adverse possession by purchaser - Limitation -
HELD: The grant provides that the grantee can enjoy the
property for 15 years - Not only the grant was only for a
limited period but it was a/so for cultivation - Therefore, it was
F
a grant for possession by way of cultivation for a limited period
and it cannot be said that by the said grant the grantee had
acquired absolute title to the land in question from the State
Government - Therefore, the period of limitation which would
have been applicable in the instant case would be 30 years
G - Adverse possession - Limitation.

One Smt 'M' was allotted 2 acres of agricultural land
through a grant by the State Government on 08.01.1957
with a condition prohibiting any alienation of the land for
H 136
,.
G. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND 137
.) " ANR.
a period of 15 years. The father of the appellant A
purchased the said land from Smt. 'M' under a registered
sale deed dated 20.12.1968. After the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force, Smt.
;, •'\.
' 'M' made an application for resumption of the land in B
question on the ground that it was purchased by the
father of the appellant, in violation of the prohibition
clause of the grant. In the first round of litigation, the
revenue authorities allowed the application of Smt. 'M' but
on remand of the matter from the High Court, the c
authorities accepted the plea of adverse possession set
up by the purchaser. However, in the writ petition filed
by the heirs of the original grantee the single Judge of
' the High Court held that the purchaser was precluded
~

from setting up the inconsistent plea of adverse D
possession and, ultimately, held in favqur of heirs of the
original grantee. The writ appeal having been dismissed
by the Division Bench of the High Court, the heir and legal
representative of the purchaser filed the instant appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court E

HELD: 1.1. It is clear that the appellant took up the
plea of adverse possession by way of defence. The
'*'."oo predecessor-in-interest of the appellant claimed title over
the land in question by virtue of purchase and at no stage F
he had put up any hostile claim to the property. The plea
was of ownership by right of purchase and, therefore, a
lawful right to enjoy the property. The Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents rightly
;..,
held that the plea of adverse possession was not G
available to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant
in law; and in view of such legal position the authorities
below erred in accepting the plea of adverse possession
in respect of the granted land. [para 9] [143-E-G]

1.2. Even otherwise, so as to ascertain whether in the H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A instant case the period of limitation would be 12 years or
30 years, a bare perusal of the grant would indicate that
it was only a transfer of the possession of the land by
way of allotment and in none of the clauses of the grant
it is stated that it is a conveyance of the title over such
B land by the State Government. Clause 1 of the grant gives
authority to the grantee to clear the land and to bring it
to cultivable stage. It further provides that the grantee can
enjoy the property for 15 years. Not only the grant was
only for a limited period but it was also for cultivation.
c Therefore, it was a grant for possession by way of
cultivation for a limited period and it cannot be said that
by the said grant the transferee had acquired absolute
title to the land in question from the State Government.
Therefore, the period of limitation which would have been
applicable in the instant case would be 30 years, in the
0
light of the ratio laid down in K. T. Buchegowda's* case.
[Para 11) [145-A-EJ

*K. T. Buchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner and Others
(1994) 3 sec 536 - relied on.
E
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 3 sec 536 relied on para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 4255 of 2002.

From the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.1998 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 3269 of 1998.

K.V. Mohan for the Appellant.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is
directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.1998
H passed by the Division Bench ofthe Karnataka High Court in
G. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND 139
J:...,,
ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
""' Writ Appeal No. 3269 of 1998 dismissing the Writ Appeal filed A
by the appellant.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the case are that the
disputed land was allotted through a grant by the State of
!' Karnataka to one Smt. Munemma on 08.01.1957 with a
\ B
' condition prohibiting any alienation of the land for a period of
15 years. Gopalappa, late father of the appellant herein,
purchased the said land from Smt. Munemma under a
registered sale deed dated 20.12.1968.

.; 3. In view of the coming into force of the Karnataka c
Scheduled Castes and S.cheduled Tribes [Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short "the Prohibition
of Transfer Act"] Smt. Munemma made an application under the
said Prohibition of Transfer Act for the resumption o~ the land
~
in question on the ground that it was purchased by Gopalappa, D
late father of the appellant, in violation of the prohibition clause
of the grant. By passing an order dated 07.06.1984 Assistant
Commissioner allowed the application filed by Smt. Munemma
which was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in
appeal. Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner the E
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed a Writ Petition
before the Karnataka High Court, which remanded back the
matter to the appropriate authority for its disposal in accordance
with law. Pursuant thereto the Assistant Commissioner after
,,
conducting an enquiry vide its order dated 10.10.1995 held that F
the purchaser is in possession of the land for more than 12
years which decision was further confirmed in appear by the
Deputy Commissioner. Against the aforesaid order a Writ
Petition was filed by the heirs of the original grantee which was
registered as Writ Petition No. 26848/1997.
;-,
G
4. Learned Single Judge who heard the aforesaid Writ
Petition vide order dated 15.06.1998 held that the authorities
below erred in law in applying the principles of adverse
possession to the case in hand. The learned Single Judge held
that since the purchaser had taken the stand that by purchasing H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A the said land under a valid sale deed he had been enjoying the
cultivation and possession in his own right as owner thereof,
therefore, he is precluded from setting up the inconsistent plea
of adverse possession either as against the State or the
grantee. It was also held that the aforesaid allotted land through
B a grant was purchased by the purchaser in contravention of the
prohibition clause of the grant in question. Consequently, the
said Writ Petition filed by the heirs of the original grantee
succeeded and the impugned orders were quashed and the
Assistant Commissioner was directed to take action according
c to law to restore possession of the said land to the respondent.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order a Writ Appeal
was filed by the appellant herein which was dismissed by order
dated 2.0.10.1 Q98 as against which the present appeal has
been filed, on which we heard learned counsel appearing for
D the appellant, who during the course of his argument had taken
us through the records also. The respondent despite service
did not enter appearance.

6. The land involved in the present case is Sy No. 53
E measuring 2 acres situated in Village-Hebbatta, Taluk-
Srinivaspur, District-Kolar. While granting land in favour of the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein through a grant
dated 8th January, 1957 it was clearly stipulated in the grant
that the said land cannot be transferred for 15 years.
F Subsequently, however, on 20.12.1968 the said land was
purchased by the late father of appellant. Earlier to the same
an agreement to sale was also entered into between the
parties on 25.12.1965.
7. However, after coming into force of the Karnataka
G Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, w.e.f., 01.01.1979, the
original grantee - Smt. Munemma made an application under
Section 5 of the Prohibition of Transfer Act before the Assistant
Commissioner seeking resumption of the land on the ground
H that it was purchased by the late father of the appellant in
G. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND 141
-k ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
violation of the prohibition clause of the grant. The application A
of Smt. Munemma was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner
which was also upheld by Deputy Commissioner in appeal.
Against the said decision of the Deputy Commissioner a Writ
i
Petition was filed by the appellant before the Karnataka High
'' Court, which remanded back the matter to be decided by the B
appropriate authority in accordance with law.

8. Pursuant to the said order of the High Court an
application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner. At
this stage it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of
Section 4 and 5 of the said Prohibition Act: -
c
"4. PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF GRANTED
,, LANDS-
--<
(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, D
contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land
made either before or after the commencement of
this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant
of such land or the law providing for such grant, or
sub-Section (2) shall be null and void and no right
E
title or interest in such land shall be conveyed not
be deemed ever to have conveyed by such
transfer.
. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this
Act transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land F
without the previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provision of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall apply
also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree
.....
or order of a civil court or of an award or order of G
any other authority.
5. RESUMPTION AND RESTITUTION OF GRANTED
LANDS-
(1) Where an application by any interested person or on H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.

A information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and
after such enquiry as he deems necessary the Assistant
Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted
land is null and void under sub-section (1) of section 4, he
may-
B
a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all
persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be
prescribed;

provided that no such order shall be made except after
c giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of
being heard;

b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land
D in such grantee or legal heir such land shall be deemed
to have vested in the Government free from all
encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to
a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to
grant of lands.
E
(1A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section(1) the
Assistant Commissioner may if he is satisfied that transfer
of any granted land is not null and void pass an order
accordingly.
F
(2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner
under Section SA, any order passed under sub-section (1)
and (1A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any
court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court
G in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken
by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section where any granted land
is in the possession of a person other than the original
H grantee or his legal heir it shall be presumed until the
G. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND 143
- ~ ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
contrary is proved that such person has acquired the land A
by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of
sub-section (1) of section 4."

The Assistant Commissioner after hearing the parties, however,
··•-\ rejected the application holding that the late father of the B
appellant is protected from dispossession by way of
application of the plea of adverse possession which decision
was also confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. But
in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent the learned Single
Judge of the High Court set aside the said findings of the
authorities below and directed for the restoration of possession C
of the land in favour of the respondent. Learned Single Judge
further held that no transfer could have been made by the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent, i.e., Smt. Munemma
and, therefore, alienation made in favour of the late father of
the appellant was contrary to the prohibition clause. of the said D
grant as also to the provisions of law.
9. It is clear from the aforesaid· position that in order to
overcome the aforesaid difficulties the appellant took up the
plea of adverse possession by way of defence. The E
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant claimed title over the
said land by virtue of purchase and at no stage he had put up
any hostile claim to the property. The plea was of ownership
by right of purchase and therefore a lawful right to enjoy the
property. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ F
petition filed .by the respondent has made reference to the
aforesaid position and held that the plea of adverse
possession was not available to the predecessor-in-interest of
the appellant in law and in view of such legal position the
authorities below erred in accepting the plea of adverse G
possession in respect of the granted land. There appears to
be justification in the findings of the High Court.
10. Even otherwise, we may refer to the decision of this
Court in K. T. Buchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner and
H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
,./;... ...
A Others reported in (1_994) 3 SCC 536 where at paragraph 8
of the said judgment this Court has held thus: -

"8. On a plain reading, granted land will mean, any land
granted by the Government to a person, who is a member
B of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which
includes land allotted to such persons. Grant may be of
different types; it may be by absolute transfer of the interest
of the State Government to the person concerned; it may
be only by transfer of the possession of the land, by way
of allotment, without conveying the title over such land of
c the State Government. If by grant, the transferee has
acquired absolute title to the land in question from the
State Government, then subject to protection provided by
the different provisions of the Act, he will be subject to the
same period of limitation as is prescribed for other citizens
D by the provisions of the Limitation Act, in respect of
extinguishment of title over land by adverse possession.
On the other hand, if the land has been allotted by way of
grant and the title remains with the State Government, then
to extinguish the title that has remained of the State
E Government by adverse possession, by a transferee on the
basis of an alienation made in his favour by an allottee,
the period of limitation shall be 30 years. Incidentally, it may
be mentioned that some of the States in order to protect
the members of the Scheduled Tribes from being
F dispossessed from the lands which belong to them and of
which they are absolute owners, for purpose of
extinguishment of their title by adverse possession, have
prescribed special period of limitation, saying that it shall
be 30 years. In Bihar, vide Regulation No. 1 of 1969, in
G Article 65 of the Limitation Act, it has been prescribed that
it would be 30 years in respect of immovable property
belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribes as
specified in Part Ill to the Schedule to the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950."
H
'3. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND 145
ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
11. Therefore, so as to ascertain whether in the present A
case the period of limitation would be 12 years or 30 years,
.
, we have perused the grant given to the predecessor-in-interest
of the Respondent, a copy of which was placed on record by
-f
the appellant. A bare perusal of the aforesaid grant would
\ indicate that nowhere in the said grant it has been clearly and B
specifically stated that it has been an absolute transfer of the
right in title and possession by the State Government to the
concerned person. A bare perusal of the document would also
indicate that it was only a transfer of the possession of the land
by way of allotment and in none of the clauses of the grant it is c
stated that it is a conveyance of the title over such land by the
State Government. Clause 1 of the grant gives authority to the
grantee to clear the land and to bring it to cultivable stage. It
further provides that the grantee can enjoy the property for 15
years. Not only the grant was only for a limited period but it was 0
also for cultivation. Therefore, it was a grant for possession by
way of cultivation for a limited period and it cannot be said that
by the aforesaid grant the transferee had acquired absolute title
to the land in question from the State Government. Therefore,
the period of limitation which would have been applicable in the E
present case would be 30 years, in the light of the ratio laid
down by the said decision.

12. In any case the appellant has failed to make out any
case for interference. We find no merit in this appeal, which
stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. F

R.P.. Appeal dismissed.