KALIYAMMA & ORSversusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA, DISTT. & ORS.

                              (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                         B

!
,,            (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SAT'.-IASIVAM, JJ.)
     1
               Ke.1rnataka Land Revenue Cod'd:
              Grant of I.and - Grantee alienating lemd during non- C
       alienable period - HELD: Appt7flate authority rightly held that
       land vested in Government - Karnataka Scheduled Castes
       and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition ofTransf'erofCertain Lands)
       Act, 1979.
                                                                       D
              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 E
        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. F
        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.                    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
B merit and, as such, are dismissed. [para 3 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
F High Court Act, 1979 (in short the 'High Court Act'). Challenge       }--
  in the appeals was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge
  of the Karnataka High Court.
         2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

G        Eight acres of land in Survey No.59 were granted to two
    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
    Nagappa and three acres were given to Budappa. The said
H
            KALIYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER                     3
              CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
     ~   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
-1
         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.
               3. It was the stand of the appellants that the grant was
         made in Form I and, therefore, the land will not come within the    E
         purview of the depressed class category and would be under
         the general category. Therefore, it was submitted that since they
         were in possession for more than 12 years from the date the
         Act came into force they have perfected the title by adverse
 __.     possession. Legal representatives of the grantee filed appeal       F
         under Section 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner.
         The said Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order
         of the Assistant Commissioner holding that in these cases grant
         has been made during 1957 under the Land Revenue Code
         and the right of possession in respect of the grantee is limited.   G
         It was noticed that there was a condition not to alienate the
~        land in question for a period of 10 years. In these cases the
         alienation took place much before completion of the ten years'
         period: Since the land was alienated during the non-alienable
         period, the land vested with the Government. It was also            H
4        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 1 S.C.R.


noticed that the period would be 30 years and not 12 years
as contented.
      4. The matter was challenged by the appellants before the
learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition but inter
alia directed as follows:
          "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."
     5. The matter was carried in writ appeal. As noted above,
the same was dismissed by the impugned order.
     6. The stand taken before the High Court essentially was
that the land was granted under the non-depressed class
category and, therefore, the period is 12 years to substantiate
the plea about adverse possession.
     7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and
the High Court which held that the appellants were not the first
purchasers, they in fact are the second purchaser, and in both
Forms 1and Form 2 the non-alienable period is the same.
     8. Above being the position there is no merit in these
appeals. Similar issues came up for consideration before this
Court in Guntaiah and Ors. v. Hambamma and Ors. [2005 (6)
SCC 228]. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it was inter a/ia
observed as follows:
        KALIYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER                           5
          CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
            "The finding of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court
            is that if the grant is made under Rule 43-J, there could not
            have been any condition restricting the alienation and if at
            all there were any such conditions they are null and void.
            This view has been taken for the reason that conditions
            restricting alienations are given under clause (4) of Rule
            43-G and these provisions would apply to grant of lands
            made under the preceding rules and not apply to Rule 43-
            J which comes after Rule 43-G of the Rules of 1960. This
            view has been taken based on the title/marginal note of
            Rule 43-G. The Full Bench was also of the view that under
            Rule 43-J, it is not stated that ther(;? shall be any conditions
            prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the Court held that
            Authorities were not empowered to impose any such
            conditions."
          9. In view of what has been stated above the inevitable
     conclusion is that the appeals are without merit, deserve
     dismissal, which we direct. There will be no order as to costs.
     R.P.                                           Appeals dismissed.




-{