N. VENKATESHAPPAversusMUNEMMA & ORS.

                         (2016] 2 S.C.R. 973



                      N. VENKATESHAPPA                                   A
                                  v..
                        MUNEMMA & ORS.
                (Civi!Appea!Nos.135!-!352of2016)
                        FEBRUARY 15,2016                                 B

    [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.)
       Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 - ss. 2(a), 4(3), 5, 6, 7 -
Re-grant of Inam land in favour ofalienor - Right of an alienee -
On facts, agricultural land was Thalavari Inamthi land in the hands
of original owners - Alienation of Inam 1and by sale deed dated
                                                                         c
13.05.1971, in favour of N-alienee and he was put in possession of
the land - Re-grant of land in favour of alienorlholder of office on
31.03.1982 in terms of the Act - Re-grant proceedings attained
finality - Eviction of alienee from the land - Right of alienee upon
re-grant of land in favour of alienor - Held: Upon re-grant of the       D
land in favour of the holder of a Inam land, re-grant must enure to
the benefit of the alieitee, if such alienation was between OJ.02J963
and 07.08.1978 i.e. between the period of appointed date and the
date when the _;Jmendment Act came into force - Upon such-re-
grant, the title of a holder of the fnam land would relate back to the
                                                                         E
date. of coming into force of the Act - Alienation effected by them,
by principles of 'feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the
benefit of the alienee who would get good title to such land after
such re-grant - Alienee would not be "unauthorized holder".
       Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                                         F
         HELD: 1. As laid-down in *Laks'1ma11a Gowda and **Syed
  Bhasheer A flamed, upon re-grant of the laud in favour of the holder
  of a Service-loam, the re-grant must enure to the benefit of the
  alienee, if such alienatio'n was between 01.02.1963 and
  07.08.1978. Further, upo'! such re-grant, the title of a holder of
  the Service_-inam land would relate back. to the .date of coming       G
. into force of the Act. In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the
  title of the predecessors of the respondents would relate back.
  The alienation effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of
  "feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the
  alienee who would get good iitle to such land after such re-grant.     H
                                 973
974             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     Where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and
      07.08.1978 the alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". In
      the circumstances, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate
      proceedings for eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village
      Offices Act, 1961 against the alienee, namely, the predecessor-
      in-interest of the appellant. The judgment and orders of the High
B
      Court are set aside and that of the trial court as affirmed by the
      appellate court is restored. [Paras 15, 16] [978-E-H; 979-A-B]
            *Laksh111a11a Gowda v. State of Karna/aka (1981) 1
            Karnataka Law Journal 1; **Syed Bhasheer Ahamed
            v. State of Karnataka 1994 (1) KLJ 385 - approved.
c
                               Case Law Reference
      (1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1           approved         Paras 14, 15
      1994 (1.) KLJ 385                          approved         Paras 14, 15

D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 35 l-
      1352 of2016.
             from the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 and 01.06.2011
      of the High Court ofKarnataka in RSA No. 323 of2008 and in Review
      Petition No. 4 76of2010.
 E          Sampat Anand Shetty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the
      Appellant.
            S. N. Bhat, Adv. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

 F          UDAY UMESH LALIT J. I. Leave granted.
            2. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010
      in Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011
      passed in R.P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at
      Bangalore.
 G           3. The Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 abolishes village
      offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the
      Constitution oflndia. The appointed date under Section 2(a) of the Act
      is 01.02.1963. Section 4 of the Act abolishes all village offices on and
      with effect from the appointed date and sub-section (3) of Section 4
      stipulates that subjectto the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 land annexed
 H
         N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS.                                     975
                [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

to a village office shall stand resumed and be subject to the payment of         A
land revenue as if it were unalienated land or ryotwari land. Section 5
of the Act lays down that the lands so resumed under Section 4(3) of the
Act and not falling under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act be granted to the
person who were holders of the village offices ;rnmediately prior to the
appointed date on such payment as prescribed. Sections 6 and 7 of the
                                                                                 B
Act lay down that if the land so resumed is held by an authorized holder
it shall be re-granted to such holder on payment of occupancy price as
prescribed.
       4. The Act was amended by Act No.13 of 1978 which inter alia
inserted Section 5( 4) as under:-
                                                                                 c
      "5(4) Any transfer ofland in contravention of sub-section (3) shall
      be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be
      forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all
      encumbrances and any person· in possession thereof shall be
      summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner and
      the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the law applicable        D.
      to the disposal ofunoccupicd unalienated lands:
      Provided that if the person who has transferred the land in
      contravention of sub-section (3) is not alive, while disposing of
      such land, preference shall be given to the heirs of such person.
                                                                                 E
      Explanation.-For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that
      in sub-section (3), and in this sub-section transfer includes creation
      of a lease."
      Section 7 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act now
reads as under:                                                                  F
       "7. Eviction of unauthorised holders etc.-
       ( I) Where any land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 is in
       the possession of an unauthorised holder such unauthorised holder
       shall be summarily evicted therefrom and the land shall be taken
       possession of by the Deputy Commissioner i11 accordance with              G
       law: Provided that no such summary eviction shall be made except
       after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of niaking
       representation.
       (2) Any order of eviction pas'sed under sub-sectiQn (I) shall be
       final and shall not be questioned in any court oflaw and no injunction    H
976             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016) 2 S.C.R.


A           sh al I be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken
            or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of
            the power conferred by sub-section (I).
            (3) The land from which an unauthorised holder is evicted under
            sub-section (I) shall,-
 B          (a) if it was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to an
            inferior village office be re-granted to the holder of such village
            office; and
            (b) in other cases be disposed of in accordance with the law
            applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands."
c
           5. In Lakslimana Gowda v. State ofKarnataka', Division Bench
   of the High Court had an occasion to consider questions including one
   concerning rights of an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or
   the authorized holder. It dealt with various issues but the one concerning
   the present matter was Question No. (iii) which was to the following
 D effect:
            "(iii) Did an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the
            authorized holder, acquire title to such land, ifthe alienation had
            taken place between the date of the coming into force of the
            Principal Act and the date of the re-grant, after its re-grant to its
 E          holder or the authorized holder under Section S or 6, as the case
            may be, of the Principal Act? "
            6. The answer to the aforesaid question was given in para 66 of
      the Judgment in the following words-:
            "Hence, our answer to the question is that if the holder or the
 F
            authorized holder of a Service lnam land had alienated it after the
            Principal Act came into force and before it was re-granted to him
            under Section Sor 6 of the Principal Act, the alienee acquired a
            title to that land after such re-grant to his aliener."
         7. During the course of its discussion concerning the aforesaid
 G question, it was also observed:-
            "We have already held that though the holder or the authorized
            holder of a Service lnam Land got title to such land only when it
            was actually re-granted to him under S. S or 6 of the Principal

 H    ' ( 1981 ) I Kamataka Law Journal I
             N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS.                                     977
                    [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]      '                      --
                                                                        ·-




         Act, such title related back to the date of coming into force of that      A
         Act. From this, it would follow that if he purported to alienate
         such land before it was re-granted to him, but after the Principal
         Act came into force, the doctrine offeeding the grant by estoppels
         embodied in S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, would apply
         and the title he subsequently acquired on such re-grant of that
                                                                                    B
         land, would ensure to the benefit of his alienee, who would get a
         good title to such land after such re-grant to his alienor."
      8. The aforesaid view in Lakshmana Gowtfal was affirmed by
Full Bench of the High Court in Syed Blwsheer Ahamed v. State of
Karnatakal. While considering the rights of an alienee under an
alienation made between 01.02.1963 and 07.08-1978 i.e. between the
                                                                                     c
period of the appointed date and the date when the Amendment Act
came into force, the Ful.1 Bench in para 30 (f) of its judgment observed
as under:-
          "There is no provision in the Act authorizing the State Government
          or its authorities to evict an alienee under an alienation made            D
          between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978. Section 7 is not applicable, as
          such an alienee is not an 'unauthorised holder'. If the land
        . alienated between 1-2- I 963 and 7-8-1978, is subsequently re-
          granted to the alienor, the benefit of such re-grant, namely, title
          will enure to the benefit of the alienee. If the land is not re-granted    E
          to the alienor, but to someone else on the ground that the alien or is
          not a 'holder' or 'authorised holder', then the alienee will be in the
          position of a transferee from a person without any title; and the
          grantee to whom the re-grant is made, will be entitled to obtain
          possession from the alienee and the limitation for such grantee to
          dispossesses the alienee will commence from the date of re-                F
          grant."
       9.Agricultural land bearing Survey No.83 ofHoshalli Village, Kolar
District, Karnatakaadmeasuring 3 acres 3.9 guntaswas Thalavari Jnamthi
land in the hands of original Baruvardars named Muni Papanna and his
father Narasappa. Said Muni Papanna and Narasappa sold this land                     G
under registered sale deed dated 13 .05.1971 in favourof one Nadumpalli
Muneppa. Pursuant to the sale deed, the alienee was put in possession
of the land. The land in question was re-granted in favour of Muni
Papanna on 31.03. I 982. This was challenged in appeal and the matter
2
    1994 (I) KLJ 385                                                                 H
978            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     stood remitted to the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, fresh
      re-grant proceedings were taken up and the land was re-granted in favour
      of said Muni Papanna and two others. The re-grant in favour of those
      two others was challenged by Muni Papanna which challenge was
      allowed and the re-grant was confirmed in favour of Muni Papanna
      alone. Those proceedings attained finality and became conclusive.
 B
           I 0. Original SuitNo.19 of2004 was filed by the present appellant,
    being the successor-in- interest ofNadumpalli Muneppa i.e. the alienee
    in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Srinivaspuri, District Kolar.
    It was submitted that after the re-grant in favour of the original holder,
    by virtue of the judgments of the High Court ofKarnataka as mentioned
 C" herein above, the plaintiff was entitled to the land in question. It was
    further submitted that the defendants namely the wife and the children
    of Muni Papanna had however executed registered sale deeds in favour
    of defendants 5 and 6 and that they were seeking to obstruct the
    possession of the plaintiff. With these assertions, the plaintiff prayed for
 D declaration that he be declared absolute owner of the land in question
    and also prayed for appropriate permanent injunction restraining the
    defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession.
             11. All the defendants filed common written statement. It was not
      disputed that there was alienation in favour of the predecessor of the
 E    plaintiff on 28.05.1971 but it was submitted that in proceedings initiated
      byTehsildar under Section 7 of the Act, an orderofeviction was passed
      against the alienee and that the alienee was evicted from the land on
      24.09.1981. It was thus submitted that on re-grant in favour of Muni
      Papanna, the benefit must accrue to the heirs of said Papanna alone and
      that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in land in question.
 F
             12. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 12.02.2007
      accepted the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Relying on the
      decisions in Lakslmuma Gowda and Syed B/wsheer Alwmetl it was
      observed that the alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08. I 978 was
      not invalid and that the land having been re-granted in favour of Muni
 G    Papanna, the alienee can certainly claim the benefit by doctrine offeeding
      the grant by estoppel in view of the re-grant of land in favour of the
      alienor/holder of the office under Section 5( I) or 6 of the Act and the
      subsequent sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 would
      therefore be of no legal consequence. The suit was decreed declaring
 H    the plaintiff to be absolute owner.
            N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS.                                     979
                   [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

         13. The aforesaid decision of the Trial Court was challenged before A
  the Principal District Judge Kolar in Regular Appeal No.163 of2007.
  The lower Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court
  and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and.order dated 05.01.2008.
  The respondents carried the matter further by filing Second Appeal
. No.323 of2008 which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated
                                                                              B
  27.07.2010. It was observed by the High Court that the alienee having
  been evicted from the land on 24.09 .1981, as tin the date when re-grant
  was ordered, the possession was not thafofthe alienee and as such the
  courts below were not justified in relying upon the decisions of the High .
  Court Laksltman,a Gowdll and Syed Bltaslteer Alwmed case. The
  review petition preferred by the present appellant was rejected by the c
  High Court vide order dated 1.06.2011 .
        .1.4. We have heard Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Advocate
 for the appel !ant anCl Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Advocate for the respondents
 and ha,ve gone through the record and considered the rival submissions.
 The law on the point as to the rights of an alienee of an Inam land where          D
 the alienation had occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 stands
 settled by the decisions in LllkslmUma Gowda (supra) and Syed
 Bltaslteer Altamed (supra).
           15. As laid-down in these cases, upon re-grant of the land in
  favour of the holder of a Service-Inam, the re-grant must enure to the            E
  benefit of the alienee, if such alienation was between 01.02.1963 and
  07 .08.1978. Further, upon such re-grant, the title of a holder of the
   Service-inam land would relate back to the date of coming into force
   of the Act.      In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the title of the
   predecessors of the respondents herein would relate back. The alienation
   effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of"feeding the grant by            F
   estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the alienee who would get good
   title to such land after such re-grant. As observed by the Full-Bench,
   where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 the
   alienee would not be '..'unauthorized holder". In the circumstances, the
   Tehsildar was not competent to initiate proceedings for eviction under           G
   Section 7 of·the Act against the alienee, namely, the predecessor-in-
 . interest of the present appellant. Both the Courts below were, therefore,
   right and justified in accepting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and the
   High Court was completely inerror in setting aside the concurrent view
   and allowing the second appeal.
                                                                                    H
980                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A            16. We, therefore, allow these appeals. The judgment and orders
       of the High Court under appeal are set aside and the judgment and
      decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.19 of 2004 as affirmed by
      the Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No.163 of2007 is restored. No
      orders as to costs.
 B    Nidhi Jain                                             Appeals allo\ved.