HARISHCHANDRA HEGDE versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 18-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARISHCHANDRA HEGDE 
A 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2003 
[S.B. SINHA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Prohobition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978: 
Ss. 4 and 5-Restoration of land to grantee-Transferee's claim for C 
value of improvements made in the land-Government grantee-Alienating 
land in 1962-Act declaring void the alienations made in contravention 
of terms of grant-Land restored to original grantee-Transferee claiming 
that order passed uls. 5 of the Act would be subject to his right to claim 
value of improvements as prescribed uls. 51 of Transfer of Property Act- D 
Held, consequnces contained in s. 5 of the Act apply automatically in the 
event an order u/s. 4 is passed-S.4, which contains a non-obstante clause, 
would apply notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or any 
other law for the time being in force-S.51 of Transfer of Property Act 
applies to inter vivos transfers-It does not apply to a transfer made by E 
operation of law-If a judicial order is passed restoring the land back to 
a member of Scheduled Tribes in terms of the purport and object of the 
statute, the provisions of Transfer of Property Act cannot be applied in such 
a case-On facts, the matter is governed by special statute i.e., ·the Act, 
whereas Transfer of Property Act is a general Act-Unless there exists a F 
provision in the Act, an order passed thereunder cannot be supplanted or 
supplemented with reference to another statute-S. 51 of Transfer of 
Property Act cannot be held to have any application in the case-Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882-S.51. 
Manchegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1984) 3 sec G 
301, relied on. 
Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors., JT (2003) 
9 SC 201 and Krishnappa S. V & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, 
ILR (1982) 2 Kar., 1310, referred to. 
H 
1111 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5385 of 
B 
c 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.96 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 1045 of 1992. 
Girish Ananthamurthy and P.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
Kavin Gulari and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The short question which falls for consideration in this appeal arising 
out of a judgment and order dated 16.2.1996 passed by the High Court of 
Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. I 045 of 1992 is as to whether Section 51 
of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable in the cases covered by 
Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
D (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act, for short). 
On or about 1.5.1961, two acres ofland in Survey No. 134/110 were 
granted by the Government ofKarnataka in favour of one Smt. Gangamma. 
The appellant purchased the said land from her through a registered sale 
E deed for valuable consideration on 13.9.1962 and allegedly invested a lot 
of money for improvement thereof. The Act came into force w.e.f. 
1.1.1979. 
F 
By reason of Section 4 of the Act all the alienations made in 
contravention of the terms of Grant were declared as void and all such lands 
were resumed and restored to the original grantee in terms of Section 5 
of the Act. On or about 11.9.1986, the original grantee made an application 
for initiation of a proceeding under Section 4 of the Act, in pursuance 
whereof the proceeding was initiated against the appellant. An order of 
restoration of the land in favour of the original grantee was made by the 
G Assistant Commissioner on 29.5.1987. The appellant preferred an appeal 
before the Deputy Commissioner thereagainst which was also dismissed 
I 
on 25 .3 .1989. The appellant thereafter· filed a writ petition which was 
marked as Writ petition No. 23216 of 1990 for a declaration that any order 
passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act for 
H restoration ~f land would be subject to the right .of the transferee to claim 
H. HEGDE v. ST A TE 
1113 
the value of the improvements as prescribed under Section 51 of the A 
Transfer of Property Act. The said writ petition was dismissed by the 
learned Single Judge. The writ appeal filed by the appellant was also 
dismissed by reason of an order dated 16.2.1996. 
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would B 
submit that having regard to the fact that the appellant herein purchased 
the 

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