KALIYAMMA & ORS versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA, DISTT. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

! ,, 
-~ 
1 
(2008] 1 S.C.R. 1 
KALIYAMMA & ORS. 
A 
\/. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURG,A, 
DISTT. & ORS. 
(C.A. Nos.7875-76 of 2001) 
JANUARY 3, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SAT'.-IASIVAM, JJ.) 
Ke.1rnataka Land Revenue Cod'd: 
Grant of I.and - Grantee alienating lemd during non-
C 
alienable period - HELD: Appt7flate authority rightly held that 
land vested in Government - Karnataka Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition ofTransf'erofCertain Lands) 
Act, 1979. 
D 
The suit land admeasuring 8 acres was granted in 
favour of 'N' and 'R', the two brothers of a joint family, in 
'>rfhe year 1957. The l;aid land was later sold to one 'T' in 
the years 1965 and 1966. The transferee further alienated, 
the suit land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest 'of 
the appellants in the year 1981. Meanwhile the Karnat:aka 
E 
Scheduled Castes and thie Scheduled Tribes (Prohi~..>ition 
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 came int~ force 
and the heirs of 'N' and 'R', the original grantees,, filed an 
application for declaration that the sale' of the suit land 
V\qas null and void and the possession be re~;tored to them. 
F 
Since the Assistant Commissioner held against them, 
they filed an appeal before the Deputy 'Commissioner, 
who allowed the appeal. The w1rit petition as also the writ 
appeal of the appellants having been dismissed by the 
High Court, they filed the instant appeals. 
G 
~ 
Dismissing_ the appeals, the Court 
HELD: In view of the findings of the appellate 
authority that the grant was made in 1957 under the Land 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A Revenue Code and the right of possession in respect of 
) 
the grantee was limited as there was a condition not to 
alienate the land for a period of 10 years and since the 
land was alienated during the non-alienable period, the 
land vested with the Government, the appeals are without 
B merit and, as such, are dismissed. [para 3 and 9] 
[3-F, G; 5-0] 
Guntaiah and Ors. Vs. Hambamma and Ors. [2005] 6 
sec 228 - relied on. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
Nos. 7875-7876 of 2001. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.4.200 and 
1.12.2000 of the High Court iof Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. 
No. 7705/1999 and Review Petition No. 997/2000 respectively. 
D 
Santha Kumar Mahale, Rajesh Mahale and P. Narasimhan, 
for the Appellants. 
.. 
D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Sanjay R. Hegde andAmit 
Kr. Chawla for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court 
dismissing the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka 
F High Court Act, 1979 (in short the 'High Court Act'). Challenge 
}--
in the appeals was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge 
of the Karnataka High Court. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
G 
Eight acres of land in Survey No.59 were granted to two 
persons namely Rangappa and Nagappa sons of Kariyappa. 
.,, 
According to the appellants, the said Nagappa and Rangappa 
formed a joint family with one Budappa and in a partition, out of 
eight acres of joint family lands, five acres were given to 
H Nagappa and three acres were given to Budappa. The said 
KALIYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 
3 
CHITRADURGA DISTT. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
~ 
Budappa sold three acres of land to one Thippreeranna by A 
registered sale deed dated 3.2.1965 and remaining five acres 
of Nagappa were acquired by the vendee in the Court auction 
on 15.8.1966. Aforesaid Thippreeranna sold eight acres of land 
under the registered sale deed dated 23.2.1981 in favour of 
Devraj and the appellants herein are his legal heirs. The 8 
Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition 
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 (in short the 'Act') came 
-1 
into force with effect from 1.1.1979. One Rangaswamy claiming 
to be the son of grantee Rangappa and one Sanna Karriyamma 
claiming to be the legal representative of Nagappa filed c 
application for declaration that the sale was null and void and 
restoration of possession from the purchaser before the 
Assistant Commissioner Chitradurga Sub Division. 
These applications were clubbed and enquiry was 
conducted. The Assistant Commissioner came to hold that when D 
the grant was in favour of general category, the allotment was in 
Form-I and when it is in the name of persons belonging to the 
Schedule Castes an

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