BHADRAPPA (D) BY LRS. versus TOLACHA NAIK

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 08-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1S.C.R.199 
BHADRAPPA (0) BY LRS. 
A 
). 
.,..._ 
v. 
TOLACHA NAIK 
(C.A. No. 7782 of 2001) 
JANUARY 8, 2008 
B 
[DR.. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Government Grants : Granted land - Alienation/Sale of 
f ""' 
- Order of competent authority that alienation was effected 
within period of prohibition -High Court dismissing writ petition 
by purchaser- Justification of- Held: Justified - Transfer was c 
in violation of prohibition contained in the Act - Burden was 
on person in possession to prove that his possession was valid 
which he failed to establish - · Karnataka Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) 
Act, 1978- ss.4(1), (2) and 5(3). 
D 
The land in question was a granted land. The grantee 
1 ;'I'. 
sold the land. It was again sold by the purchaser and 
finally by subsequent sale, appellants purchased the land. 
Proceedings were initiated on the basis of application that E 
the alienation by grantee was hit by s.4 of.the Karnataka 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of 
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. An order was passed 
in the proceedings under s.5 of the Act to the effect that 
alienation was effected within the period of prohibition. 
High Court dismissed the writ petition and writ appeal filed 
F 
i ~ 
by the appellants. Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:· S.5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain G 
Lands) Act, 1978 provides that any person other than the 
"" 
grantee or his legal heirs in possession of the granted 
.• 
. 
land, shall be deemed to be in possession under a transfer 
which is null and void under ss.4(1) and 4(2) until and 
199 
H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A unless anything contrary is established. Burden, 
"" ' 
therefore, is on the person in possession to prove that 
his possession was valid in accordance with law. It was 
found factually that the writ petitioner had failed to 
establish the same. The transfer was in violation of the 
B prohibition of the Act. That being so, the High Court was 
right in dismissing the writ petition and the writ appeal. 
[Para - 8] [203-C-E] 
Guntaiah and Ors. v. Hambamma and Ors. (2005) 6 
~. 
sec 228 - referred to. 
c 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7782 
of 2001. 
From the final Judgment/Order dated 9.11.2000 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1886/2000. 
D 
WITH 
C.A.No. 7799/2001 
Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik, Satish Daya Nandan and 
"': 
~ 
G.S. Pandey for the Appellants. 
E 
S.K. Kulkarni, G. Gireesh Kumar and Khwairakpam Nobin 
Singh, forthe Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
F 
Civil Appeal No. 7782 of 2001 
~· I 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ 
G appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 
(in short the 'High Court Act'). Challenge in the appeal was to 
the order passed by a learned Single Judge who had dismissed 
the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bhadrappa. After the death 
of Bhadrappa, his legal heirs were brought on record and they 
H are the appellants before this Court. 
BHADRAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. 
TOLACHA NAIK [PASAYAT, J.] 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
201 
The land in question was granted some time in the year 
1955 in favour of one Gopya Naik who is referred hereinafter 
A 
as grantee. Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.10.1956. 
Seetamma, widow of the grantee who was also the mother of 
respondent No.3 sold the land in the year 1959 in favour of one B 
Gangappa who in turn sold the said land to Ahmad Pasha and 
there was subsequent sale by Ahmad Pasha to Bhadrappa. 
The land in question bears Survey No.106 measuring 3 acres 
and 5 guntas. 
4. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of an 
application that the alienation was hit by Section 4 of Karnataka 
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer 
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act'). 
5. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act read as follows: 
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) 
Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract 
c 
D 
or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either 
before or after the commencement of this Act, in E 
contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the 
law
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.