K.T. HUCHEGOWDA versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 18-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-<'' 
"·-. 
K.T. HUCHEGOWDA 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
MARCH 18, 1994 
[AM. AHMADI, N.P. SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of 
Transfer of Cenain Lands) Act, 1978-Sections 4 & 5---Grant of Land-Trans-
A 
B 
fer in contravention of terms of grant-Application for restoration-Title by 
prescription-:Period of limitation-To be determined considering facts of C 
case-Matter remanded back to High Coun. 
Father of the third respondent was granted some land by the State 
Government, with the condition that he shall not alienate the said land for 
a period of 15 years from the date of the grant. However, the land was 
transferred before the expiry of the period of 15 years. The Assistant D 
Commissioner declared the alienation of the land as nnll and void and 
directed restroation of land to the respnndent being the heir of the original 
grantee. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed on behalf 
of the appellant The appellant claimed to be in peacefnl possession of the 
said land. However, the Writ Application filed on behalf of .the appellant, E 
was dismissed by the High Court holding that in order to defeat the claim 
of the third respondent, the appellant had to prove adverse possession 
over the land not only for a period of 12 years but for a period of 30 years, 
i.e. the period prescribed in respect of the lands belonging to State Govern· 
ment. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the order of the High 
Court, rejecting the claim of the appellant, that being in possession over 
the lands dispute for more than 12 years, he had perfected his title by 
prescription. 
Dispossing of the ap11eal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. In cases where granted lands had been transfered before G 
the commencement of the Act in violation of the condition, regarding 
prohibition on such transfer and the transferee who had initially acquired 
only a voidable title in the granted lands by prescription by long and 
continuous enjoyment thereof in accordance with law before the commen-
cement of the Act, has to be read, for purpose of determining the period H 
151 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of limitation in respect of lands granted with absolute ownership, to mean 
12 years and grant by way of allotment without transfer of the ownership 
in favour of the grantee, to mean 30 years. [p. 158-E-G] 
B 
Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v. State of Kamataka, (1985) 1 Scale 445 and 
Manchegowda v. State qf Kamataka, AIR (1984) SC 1151, relied on. 
1.2. For the purpose of determining whether the period of 12 years 
or 30 years limitation is to be applied, each case has to be examined on its 
own merit. In the instant case, High Court has to examine the claim made 
by the appellant on the materials produced in support of the said claim. 
C The object and scheme of the Act is to protect the interest of the members 
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the transfer in favour 
of the appellant being in contravention of the terms of the grant, heavy 
onus rests on the appellant, to show to the court that by his continuous 
and adverse possession, the right, title and interest of the grantee has been 
extinguished before the commencement of the Act. [p. 158-H; 159-A-F) 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2099 of 
1994. 
) 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.90 of the Karnataka. High 
). 
E 
F 
G 
Court in W.A. No. 2167 of 1990. 
Gobinda Mukkoty, S.S. Javali, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Lalita Kaushik 
and B. Veerbhadrappa for the Appellant. 
M. Veerappa, Kh. Notin Singh, Anip Sachthey, Chave Badri Nath 
Babu, R.N. Keshwani, K.V. Mohan, S.Wasim A. Qadri, L.R. Singh, Dr. 
R.B. Masodkar, K.L. Taneja and S.N. Bhat for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.P. SINGH, J. Leave !,'!anted. 
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, for setting aside 
an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, rejecting the claim of the 
appellant, that, being in possession over the lands in dispute for more than 
12 years, he had perfected his title by prescription, as such there was no 
scope for restoring the lands to the concerned respondent, in accordance 
H with the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
' 
HU CHE GOWDA v. DY. COMMR. [N.P. SINGH, J.] 
153 
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter A 
referred to as the 
11Act
11). 
According to the appellant, the fathe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.