M/S. MURUDESHWARA CERAMICS LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 12-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. MURUDESHWARA CERAMICS LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BJ\BU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 : 
Section 109-Exemption-From the operation of Ss. 63. 79-A, 79-B and 
• 80-Grant of-State Government granted such exemption after transaction 
C 
took place and not prior to it-Validity of-Held: State Government has power 
to grant such exemption before the acquisition of land or thereafter-Once 
such exemption is granted these provisions are not applicable. 
Respondent Nos. 13 to 22 filed a writ petition in the High Court to 
restrain the appellants from putting up any construction, digging of well or 
carrying out any activity or establishing and putting up of a clay processing 
industry in the land in question being in contravention of the provisions of 
the Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The land was purchased by appellant 
No. 2 under a registered sale deed and the State Government had granted 
exemption under Section 109 of the Act from the applicability of Sections 63, 
-
79-A, 79-B and 80 of the Act. The High Court held that the exemption was 
of no avail since it was granted subsequent to the event of sale. The High 
Court also held that the moment a transaction took place, which was in 
contravention of the provisions of the Act, the land would vest in the 
Government and, therefore, prior exemption was necessary in the case. The 
writ petition was accordingly allowed. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
D 
E 
F 
HELD : 1. The land does not immediately vest on the transaction 
being entered into because an enquiry has to be held as to the contravention • G 
of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and thereafter 
an appropriate order is made. In the present case, no such proceedings have 
been initiated under any of the provisions of the Act. [154-C] 
2. Exemption under Section 109 of the Act could be granted before the 
H 
. 
151 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
acquisition of the land or thereafter when it is actually sought to be put to 
those particular uses, which are enumerated under Section 109 of the Act. It 
is not with reference to any particular person or transaction such exemption 
Is granted but it is with reference to a land such exemption is granted. The 
Government has powers to grant exemption from the operation of the 
B 
provisions of Sections 63, 79-A, '79-B and 80 of the Act and those provisions 
will be out of place insofar as the land in question is concerned. These 
provisions are not applicable in the case of the land in question in view of the 
exemption granted. [154-F-GJ 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7136 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.98 of the Karnataka High Court 
in W.P. No. 15727 of 1997 (PIL). 
WITH 
D 
C.A. No. 7137 of 2001. 
E 
B. Mohan, Sanjay R. Hegde, Rajesh Mahale, R.C. Kohli, Y.P. Mahajan, 
M. Vijaya Bhaskar, P. Parmeswaran, N. Ganpathy and C.N. Scee Kumar for 
the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was,delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Leave granted. 
Respondent Nos.13 to 22 filed a writ petition in the High Court to 
F · restrain the appellants from putting up any construction, digging of well or 
carrying out any activitY. or establishing and putting up of a clay processing 
industry in the land comprised in Survey No. 23 of Varakodu Village, Hosangar 
Taluk, Shimoga District in the State of Karnataka and for a direction to the 
appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 12 to appoint a commission for scientific 
G 
H 
study of the environment and ecology in ibe area for establishing of clay 
processing unit in the land in question or in any other land in Sahyadri 
mountain range or the entire western ghat with reference to the feasibility of 
mining and establishing industry. They also alleged that there has been 
contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] in addition to the enactments made for 
protection of the environment and ecology like the Karnataka Forests Act, 
-
-
MURUDESHWARA CERAMICS LTD. v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 153 
Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act and Forests Conservation Act. The land 
A 
was purchased by appellant No.2 from the descendants of one Seetarama 
Maruti under a registered sale deed dated 22.2.1997. Appellant No.2 also 
happens to be the Executive Director of the appellant No. l comp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.