LexG. KRISHNAREDDY versus SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 136 -\. A G. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4255 of 2002) JULY 18, 2011 r B [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes c (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: ss. 4 and 5 - Land granted for 15 years for cultivation by the State Government, purchased within the prohibited period - After coming into force of the Act, application by grantee .. for resumption of the land - Plea of adverse possession > D raised by purchaser- HELD: High Court has rightly held that the plea of adverse possession was not available to the purchaser. Government grant of agricultural land - Land purchased E within the period of prohibition - After coming into force of the Act, application for resumption of the land filed by grantee - Plea of adverse possession by purchaser - Limitation - HELD: The grant provides that the grantee can enjoy the property for 15 years - Not only the grant was only for a F limited period but it was a/so for cultivation - Therefore, it was a grant for possession by way of cultivation for a limited period and it cannot be said that by the said grant the grantee had acquired absolute title to the land in question from the State Government - Therefore, the period of limitation which would G have been applicable in the instant case would be 30 years - Adverse possession - Limitation. One Smt 'M' was allotted 2 acres of agricultural land through a grant by the State Government on 08.01.1957 with a condition prohibiting any alienation of the land for H 136 ,. G. KRISHNAREDDY v. SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND 137 .) " ANR. a period of 15 years. The father of the appellant A purchased the said land from Smt. 'M' under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1968. After the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of ;, •' Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force, Smt. \. 'M' made an application for resumption of the land in B ' question on the ground that it was purchased by the father of the appellant, in violation of the prohibition clause of the grant. In the first round of litigation, the revenue authorities allowed the application of Smt. 'M' but on remand of the matter from the High Court, the c authorities accepted the plea of adverse possession set up by the purchaser. However, in the writ petition filed ' by the heirs of the original grantee the single Judge of ~ the High Court held that the purchaser was precluded from setting up the inconsistent plea of adverse D possession and, ultimately, held in favqur of heirs of the original grantee. The writ appeal having been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the heir and legal representative of the purchaser filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1. It is clear that the appellant took up the plea of adverse possession by way of defence. The '*'."oo predecessor-in-interest of the appellant claimed title over the land in question by virtue of purchase and at no stage F he had put up any hostile claim to the property. The plea was of ownership by right of purchase and, therefore, a lawful right to enjoy the property. The Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents rightly ;.., held that the plea of adverse possession was not G available to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in law; and in view of such legal position the authorities below erred in accepting the plea of adverse possession in respect of the granted land. [para 9] [143-E-G] 1.2. Even otherwise, so as to ascertain whether in the H 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. A instant case the period of limitation would be 12 years or 30 years, a bare perusal of the grant would indicate that it was only a transfer of the possession of the land by way of allotment and in none of the clauses of the grant it is stated that it is a conveyance of the title over such B land by the State Government. Clause 1 of the grant gives authority to the grantee to clear the land and to bring it to cultivable stage. It further provides that the grantee can enjoy the property for 15 years. Not only the grant was only for a limited period but it was also for cultivation. c Therefore, it was a grant for possession by way of cultivation for a limited period and it cannot be said that by the said grant the transferee had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.