LexGURUPUTRAPPA MALLAPPA HARKUNI ETC. ETC versus TAHSILDAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J A GURUPUTRAPPA MALLAPPA HARKUNI ETC. ETC. -~ ~. TAHSILDAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. AUGUST 11, 1992 B (LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] Kamataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961-Section 5(3)-Amend- ;-- ment Act 13 of 1978-Alienation of regranted land-Prohibition for 15 years c w.e.f 7.8.1978-A/ienation on 4.12.1982-Void. - C.A. 11/o. 3231/1991 The land bearing survey No. 187/2 measuring an extent of 18.21 acres was Patilki loam Land. The land was resumed to the Government_ ~ D under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961 with effect from 1.2.1963. On 6.2.1968, the watan land-holder filed an application for regrant · of land. He also paid an amount equal to 3 times the assessment and E health cess. The Assistant Commissioner directed the regrant on 15.4.1968. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the Tahsildar for information and necessary action. - F The watan land-holder sought sanction to alienate land as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act. He also deposited an amount equal to 15 times the assessment of land as required. -~ The Assistant Commissioner on 28.8.1968 granted the sanction. G Section 5(3) of the Act was amended by Kamataka Act 13of1978. The amended sect,on prohibited the alienation of _regranted land for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1978. 'y-- On the strength of the i_,ermission dated 28.8.68, the watan land· H holder sold away the property in parcels to three persons. The appellant 786 ~ HARKUNI v. TAHSILDAR 787 + purchased 5 acres on 4.12.1982. A The Tahsildar is~ued a notice to the appellant as to why action should not be taken against him for eviction since the land in question had been purchased in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The appellant explained that in view of the order granting sanction B to the watan land-holder, the land-holder was entitled to alienate the same; that when such a permission was granted, the land ceased to be ·-1, governed by the provisions of the Act; and that the order of sanction mentioned that the land in question was transferable. c i Rejecting the explanation, the Tahsildar ordered that possession of - the land be taken over by the Government. Against the order of the Tahsildar, the appellant filed a writ petition ) before the High Court. D ' The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that if the regranted land had not been alienated with prior permission before 7.8.1978, it could not be alienated for a period of 15 years after 7.8.1978. An appeal was preferred to the Division Bench of the High Court, >- which was also dismissed. E Hence this appeal by special leave contending that by order dated 28.8.1968 the watan land-holder was granted sanction to alienate the lands; and that merely because Section 5(3) of the Act came to be amended in 1978 that would not, in any manner, affect the sanction already granted. F The respondent-State submitted that though the sanction was r-- granted to alienate the lands, the alienation did not take place prior to 7.8.1978; that the statutory prohibition contained under Section 5(3) would squarely apply; that it could not be alienated for a period of 15 years after 7JJ.1978; and that as the alienation took place on 4.12.1982, G long after the amended Section 5(3) had come into force, such an aliena- tion was null and void. -~ ·· Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961 H, >-· 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. A was amended by Kamataka Act 13 of 1978. There is a clear prohibition ~ under the amended provision that the regranted land shall not be trans· ferable for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act 1978. The effect of which is, for period of 15 years from 7.8.1978, the Statutory bar against alienation would operate. [791C] B Laksh.mana Gowda v. State of Kamataka and others, (1981) l' Kar- nataka Law Journal Page 1, approved. State of Kamataka and Anr. v. G. Seenappa. and Anr. etc. etc., Special lave Petition (Civil) No.14627of1985 etc. D/-27.2.1992 and Rehman Khan c and others v. StaJ.,e of Kama/aka, C.A. Nos. 3104-13 of 1981, ftferred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3231 of - 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.6.1990 of the Karnataka High ~\ D Court in W .A. No. 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.