GUNTAIAH AND ORS. versus HAMBAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 22-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GUNTAIAH AND ORS. 
v. 
HAMBAMMA AND ORS. 
JULY 22, 2005 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN AND P. VENKA TARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960-Rules 43-G and 43-
C J-Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer 
of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 [Act 2of1979}-Sections 4, 5 & 11-Landless 
persons belonging to SCs and STs-Land granted to them under Rule 43-J-
Condition restricting alienation of the lands to third parties for a period of 
15 years-Validity of-Held, valid-Though Rule 43J does not provide for 
D any such condition, condition restricting alienation as stipulated in Rule 
43G is applicable-Jn any case, any transfer of granted land in contravention 
of the terms of the grant is rendered null and void by virtue of Section 4 of 
Act 2 of 1979. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Marginal notes-Held: Cannot be considered 
E as legitimate aid to consa-uction-High Court erred in interpreting Rule 43G 
of the 1960 Rules based on its title, since it has got the effect of only marginal 
notes-Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) R1,iles, 1960-Rule 43~G. 
Under the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, certain 
lands were granted to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
F Initially, these lands were given to them on temporary lease and later by virtue 
of Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960, these lands were given to them permanently 
with a restriction that the grantees shall not alienate these lands to third . 
parties for a period of 15 years. 
G 
The High Court held that ifthe grant is made under Rule '.13-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, on grounds that conditions 
restricting alienations are given under clause (4) of Rule 43-G and these 
provisions would 11pply to grant of lands made under the preceding rules and 
not apply to Rule 43-J which comes after Rule 43-G Qfthe Rules of 1960. 
If 
770 
' 
GUNT AIAH v. HAMBAMMA 
771 
This view has been taken based on the title/marginal note of Rule 43-G. The A 
High Court was also of the view that under Rule 43-J, it is not stated that 
there shall be any conditions prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the Court held 
that authorities were not empowered to impose any such conditions. Hence 
the present appeals by the State and the affected parties. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The conditions restricting alienation imposed by the 
authorities are legally valid and th.e finding of the High Court to the contrary 
is not correct. (781-A] 
B 
2.1. Rule 43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 C 
is only an enabling provision which permits the competent government 
authorities to grant title to lessees. The Government being the paramount 
title-holder is empowered to impose any condition which is not against the 
law and it is binding on the grantees. All these grants of land are made under 
the general provisions of rules and Rule 43~J by itself is not a provision by D 
which grants are made. All the general provisions of the Rules of 1960 could 
be made applicable to such grant if the grant is made at a price lesser than 
the market price, or is made free of cost. In all these cases, lands were given 
almost free of cost. (778-D, E) 
2.2. In the title to Rule 43-G, it is stated that the grants of lands under E 
the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions. This title to 
the rules as such cannot be taken as the key words to interpret Rule 43-G. 
They have got the effect of only marginal notes. The marginal notes are not 
considered as legitimate aid to construction of any section or rule. (778-F) 
Chandler v. D.P.P., (1964) A.C. 763, referred to. 
2.3. When Rule 43G itself says that where the grant is made free of 
cost or at a price which is less than the full market value, such grant shall 
be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 
F 
15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land after the G 
grant, such conditions could be imposed on any grant made to the party. 
(779-A) 
3.1. In any case, the High Court failed to take into account the clear 
language employed in Section 4 of Act 2 of 1979, according to which any 
transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
~ A this Act 'in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land' sh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.