Holding

The 1978 amendment’s 15‑year prohibition on alienation of regranted land applies to all transfers after 7 August 1978, rendering the 1982 alienation void despite the earlier sanction.

Summary

The appellant purchased 5 acres of land that had been regranted to a watan land‑holder in 1968, who had obtained a sanction to alienate the land under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. In 1978 the Act was amended (Act 13 of 1978) to prohibit the transfer of any regranted land for fifteen years from 7 August 1978. The appellant argued that the earlier sanction remained valid and that the land ceased to be governed by the Act. The High Court held that the amendment barred any alienation occurring after its commencement, regardless of prior sanction, and dismissed the writ petition; the Division Bench affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that the amendment’s prohibition operated for the full fifteen‑year period and that the 1982 alienation was void. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether a sanction to alienate regranted land granted in 1968 survives the 1978 amendment of Section 5(3) imposing a 15‑year prohibition.
Whether the alienation of the regranted land on 4 December 1982 is void under the amended provision.
Interpretation of the retrospective effect, if any, of the amendment on prior permissions.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961s. 4, s. 5(3)
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act 13 of 1978)s. 1, s. 5(3)

Subjects

regrantalienationstatutory prohibition15‑year baramendmentland transferstatutory interpretationKarnataka Village Offices Abolition Act

Judgment

J

A GURUPUTRAPPA MALLAPPA HARKUNI ETC. ETC.
-~
~.

TAHSILDAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

AUGUST 11, 1992

B (LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Kamataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961-Section 5(3)-Amend-
;--
ment Act 13 of 1978-Alienation of regranted land-Prohibition for 15 years
c w.e.f 7.8.1978-A/ienation on 4.12.1982-Void.

C.A. 11/o. 3231/1991

The land bearing survey No. 187/2 measuring an extent of 18.21
-
acres was Patilki loam Land. The land was resumed to the Government_ ~
D under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961 with
effect from 1.2.1963.

On 6.2.1968, the watan land-holder filed an application for regrant ·
of land. He also paid an amount equal to 3 times the assessment and
health cess.
E
The Assistant Commissioner directed the regrant on 15.4.1968.
Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the Tahsildar for information

F
and necessary action.

The watan land-holder sought sanction to alienate land as provided
under Section 5(3) of the Act. He also deposited an amount equal to 15
-
times the assessment of land as required. -~

The Assistant Commissioner on 28.8.1968 granted the sanction.

Section 5(3) of the Act was amended by Kamataka Act 13of1978.
G
The amended sect,on prohibited the alienation of _regranted land for a
period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the
Amendment Act of 1978. 'y--

On the strength of the i_,ermission dated 28.8.68, the watan land·
H holder sold away the property in parcels to three persons. The appellant
786
~

HARKUNI v. TAHSILDAR 787

+ purchased 5 acres on 4.12.1982.

The Tahsildar is~ued a notice to the appellant as to why action
A

should not be taken against him for eviction since the land in question had
been purchased in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

The appellant explained that in view of the order granting sanction B
to the watan land-holder, the land-holder was entitled to alienate the
same; that when such a permission was granted, the land ceased to be
·-1, governed by the provisions of the Act; and that the order of sanction
mentioned that the land in question was transferable.
c i

- Rejecting the explanation, the Tahsildar ordered that possession of
the land be taken over by the Government.

Against the order of the Tahsildar, the appellant filed a writ petition
) before the High Court.
D '

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that if the
regranted land had not been alienated with prior permission before
7.8.1978, it could not be alienated for a period of 15 years after 7.8.1978.

An appeal was preferred to the Division Bench of the High Court,
which was also dismissed. E
>-
Hence this appeal by special leave contending that by order dated
28.8.1968 the watan land-holder was granted sanction to alienate the
lands; and that merely because Section 5(3) of the Act came to be amended
in 1978 that would not, in any manner, affect the sanction already granted.
F
The respondent-State submitted that though the sanction was
r-- granted to alienate the lands, the alienation did not take place prior to
7.8.1978; that the statutory prohibition contained under Section 5(3)
would squarely apply; that it could not be alienated for a period of 15
years after 7JJ.1978; and that as the alienation took place on 4.12.1982, G
long after the amended Section 5(3) had come into force, such an aliena-
tion was null and void.
-~

· Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961 H,
>-·

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A was amended by Kamataka Act 13 of 1978. There is a clear prohibition ~
under the amended provision that the regranted land shall not be trans·
ferable for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section
1 of the Amendment Act 1978. The effect of which is, for period of 15 years
from 7.8.1978, the Statutory bar against alienation would operate. [791C]

B Laksh.mana Gowda v. State of Kamataka and others, (1981) l' Kar-
nataka Law Journal Page 1, approved.

State of Kamataka and Anr. v. G. Seenappa. and Anr. etc. etc., Special
lave Petition (Civil) No.14627of1985 etc. D/-27.2.1992 and Rehman Khan
and others v. StaJ.,e of Kama/aka, C.A. Nos. 3104-13 of 1981, ftferred to.
c
1991.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3231 of -
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.6.1990 of the Karnataka High ~\
Court in W .A. No. 2700 of 1985.
D
AND

Civil Appeal Nos. 4418-19of1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1982 of the Karnataka
E High Court in W.P. Nos. 8744 & 8745 of 1980.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1609-1610 and 1616-1617 of 1986, 4385/85, 3232- 33/91, ~

3576 and 2289 of 1984.
F
R.S. Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja and Ms. Sushila for the Appellant in C.A.
~
Nos: 3231 and 3232-33 of 1991.

M. Veerappa for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 4418-19/90.

G M. Veerappa for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 3231 and 3232-33
of 1991.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 'r-
MOHAN, J. In all these appeals the common question of law which
H arises is the scope of Section 5(3), as amended, of Karnataka Village
~

HARKUNI v. TAHSILDAR [MOHAN, J.) 189
--..;:_ Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Hence the A
appeals are dealt with under a common judgment.

It is enough if we note the fac:~.> briefly in Civil Appeal No. 3231 of
1991. The land bearing Survey No. 18712 measuring an extent of 13.21
acreas of Anigaol Village was Patilki Inam Land. The land was resumed
to the Government under Section 4 of the Act with effect from 1st B
February, 1963. Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil of Anigol was the
holder of these watan lands. He fded an application dated 6.2.1968 for
~
\ regrant of land. He also paid an amount equal to 3 times the assessment
and health cess. The Assistant Commissioner Sailhongal Division directed
the regrant by an order. dated 15.4.1968. Thereafter the papers were c
- forwarded to the Tahsildar of Sampagaon for information and necessary
action.

Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil sought sanction to alienate land
)
r
as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act as it stood then. He also
deposited an amount equal to 15 times the assessment of land as required. D
The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 28.8.1968 granted the
sanction.

In the year 1978, by Karnataka Act 13 of 1978 Section 5(3) of the
Act was amended. The amended section prohibited the alienation of
E
~ regranted land for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement
of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1978.

- On the strength of the permission dated 28.8.68, N.R. Patil, the
holder, sold away the property in parcels to three persons. An extent of 5
acres came to be purchased by the appellant on 4.12.82. The Tahsildar
Sailhongal issued a notice to the appellant as to why action should not be
F
;....~
taken against him for eviction since the land in question had been pur-
chased in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The appellant ex-
plained that in view of the order granting sanction to the holder of the land
the holder was entitled to alienate the same. Once such a permission was
granted the land ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Act. In G
any event, the order of sanction mentioned that the land in question was
,.. transferable.

This explanation was rejected by the Tehsildar who, by his order
dated 23.6.1984 held that the appellant was liable to be evicted. Accord- H
>
?90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.

A ingly, he ordered that possession of the land be taken over by the Govern-
ment free from en~braces, if any. Thereupon the appellant moved the -~
High Court of Karnataka by way of W.P. No. 11238 of 1984.

The learned Single Judge held that if the regranted land had not been
B alienated with prior permission before 7.8.1978, it could nto be alienated
for a period of 15 years after 7.8.1978. That is the clear inteµtion of the
Amendment Act of 1978. On this line of reasoning he dismissed the writ
petition. An appeal was preferred to the Division Bench in WA.No. 2700
of 1985 unsucessfully. It is under these circumstances, special leave to
appeal was preferred. Leave was granted by an order dated 22.8.91.
c
The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that by order
dated 28.8.68 the holder of Ex.Patilki watan lands was granted sanction to
alienate the lands. Such sanction is complete in every respect. Merely
because Section 5(3) of the Act came to be amended in 1978 that will not,
D in any manner, affect the sanction already granted. It matters very little
when the alienation actually took place even Within a prohibited period of
15 years from 1978.

The learned counsel for the State would submit that it is true by an
E order dated 28.8.1968 that sanction was granted to alienate the lands.
However, if the alienation had not taken place on the strength of that
sanction prior to 7.8.1978, the statutory prohibition contained under Sec-
tion 5(3) will squarely apply. In other words, it could not be alienated for
a period of 15 years after 7.8.1978. In this case, the alienation took place
on 4.12.1982 long after the amended Section 5(3) had come into force.
F Therefore, such an alienation is null and void. As a matter of fact, the
question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of kamataka and others, (1981) 1
Karnataka Law Journal Page 1, categorically ruled that such alienations are
null and void. Several special leave petitions preferred by the State and
G parties assailing that judgment have been dismissed. The same is the
position here.

On a careful consideration of the above submissions, we hold that 'r
the contention advanced on behalf of the State deserves to be accepted.
H Section 5(3) of the Amendment Act,· 1978, reads as follows:
~

HARKUNI v. TAHSILDAR [MOHAN, J.] 791

"5(3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the A
---I- case may be, re-granted under sub-section (1) shall not be
transferable otherwise than by partition among members of
Hindu joint family for a period of 15 years from the date of
commencement of Section 1 of the Karanataka Village Offices
Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978)."
B
Though the sanction to alienate was granted on 28.8.1968 yet the
-~
alienation took place on 4.12.82. In the meanwhile, the above amendment,
uamely, section 5(3) had come to be introduced by Karnataka Act 13 of
1978. There is a clear prohibiton under the above provison that the
c
-- regranted land shall not be transferable for a period of 15 years from the
date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act 1978. The
effect of which is, for a period of 15 years from 7.8.1978, the statutory bar
against alienation would operate. In fact, in Lakshmana Gowda (supra), in
paragraph 87 at page 18 it is stated thus:
/ D
"87. In the light of the above principles of statutory construe-
tion, we hold that sub-sec. (4) of S.5 of the Principal Act should

,.
be construed as being applicable only to transfers made sub-
sequent to 7.8.1978 and not to transfers which had taken place
prior to that date and that sub-sec. (3) occurring in that section E
should be construed as having .reference to amended sub- sec.
(3) and not to orginal sub-sec. (3) of that Section."

- The High Court has laid down the correct legal position. This line
of reasoning has been approved in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14627 F
of 1985 etc. in State of Kamataka and Anr. v. G. Seenappa and Anr. etc. etc.
which were dismissed by an order of this Court on 27.2.1992. Again in
Rehman Khan and others v. State of Kamataka (C.A. Nos. 3104-13of1981)
this Court upheld the ruling of Lakshman Gowda's case (supra). Thus, we
conclude that the High Court is right. No interference is called for. G

In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

V.P.R. Appeals dismissed.