LexCHINDE GOWDA versus PUTIAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTIAMMA DECEMBER 14, 2007 [DR ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act-s. 5---Grant of Government land to person C belonging to Scheduled Caste-With condition of non-alienation for 15 years-Grantee sold land in violation of the non-alienation condition-SC and ST Act came inlo force-Wife of grantee filed application under the Act seeking resumplion of land on ground that same was alienated by her late husband in breach of non-alienation D condition-Authorities concerned held the said sale null and void and directed restoration of the land to wife of grantee-Order confirmed by High Court-On appeal, held: 1mposilion of condition of prohibition on transfer for particular period did not constitute any unreasonable restriction on right of the grantees to dispose of granted lands-Sale E in violation of such condition rightly held by authorities below as null and void-Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960---rr.43(](4) & 43(1). Government land was granted in favour of Respondent No.1 's husband, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, albeit with the F condition that the same shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years., Respondent No.1 's husband, however, in violation of the said condition, sold the said land to one 'M' whose children, in turn, sold the same to appellant. G H After the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act came into force, Respondent No.1 filed application before Respondent No.2 Asst. Commissioner seeking resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the Ad on the ground that the same was alienated by her late husband in breach 932 r CHINDE GOWDA v. PUTT AMMA 933 of the said non-alienation condition. The Asst. Commissioner held A the said sale null and void and directed appellant's eviction from the land for its restoration to Respondent No.1. The order was confirmed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner. Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court contending that the authorities below declared the sale made in favour of'M' B null and void on application of sub-rule (4) ofRule43-G of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, but Rule 43G(4) was inapplicable and the correct rule applicable in respect of the said granted land was sub-rule (J) of Rule 43. High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the authorities were right in holding that C the grant of land was under Rule 43-G and not under Rule 43-J. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The prohibition regarding alienation is a restrictive D covenant binding on the grantee. The grantee is not challenging that condition. In all these proceedings, challenge is made by the third party who purchased the land from the grantee. The third party is not entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the grantor to the grantee were void. As far as the contract of sale is concerned, It was E entered into between the Government and the grantee and at that time the third-party purchaser had no interest in such transaction. Of course, he would be entitled to challenge the violation of any statutory provisions but if the grant by itself specifically says that there shall not be any alienation by the grantee for a period of 15 F years, that is binding on the grantee so long as he does not challenge that clause, more so when he purchased the land, in spite of being aware of the condition. [Para 6] [936-D-G] 1.2. The prohibition on transfer was not for an indefinite period G or perpetual. It was only for a particular period, the object being that the grantees should enjoy the granted lands themselves at least for the period during which the prohibition was to remain operative. Experience has shown that persons belonging to Sd.i!duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to whom the lands were grant1.:d were, because H 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R. A of their poverty, lack of education and general backwardness, exploited by various persons who could and would take advantage of the sad plight of these poor persons for depriving them of their lands. The imposition of the condition of prohibition on transfor for a particular period could not, therefore, be considered to constitute B any unreasonable restriction on the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted lands. The impositio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.