LexMANCHEGOWDA ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
D
E
F.
G
B
502
"
MANCHEGOWDA ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC.
Apr.if 17, 1984
(P.N. BHAGWATf, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J
Karnataka Sched•led Castes and Schedu(ed Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) 'Act, 1978, ·sections 4 & 5. constitutipnaJ validity-Whether
the jro_hibition of transfer of granted land5 and_ ResumpiOon or, restitution
thereof without p·aymeni Of compensttion or providinti any appeal for. such
order:iofresumption violates. Art. 19 (/) (/), 31and3/A of the Co,nstitution-
. Wheiher making such special provisions only with regard to. Scheduled Ciistes and '
Scheduled .Tribes to. the exclusion ~!persons belof!King to ~th_er communities,
violated Art~14-of the Constitution.
,The petitioners are purchasCrs of lands which, had been original1~
granted by the State to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes.
Such lands -had been originally granted to persons beiorlging,_
to Scheduled· Castes alld
Scheduled
Tribes
Under the
proviSons of
Law or on
the basis .. of _rules
or regulations governing such grant.
After· the passing of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibitiop of Transfer Of Ce£tain Lands A€t), 1978, notices have been
issued by the appropriate . authority tO the transferees of such lands to show
cause as to'\vhy the 'lands transferred' to them should not be resumed for
being restored to the original grantees br their legal heirs or for distributioD.
otherwise to
the me~bers ·of .Scheduled Castes- and Scheduled Tribes iri. ·
aecorditnce with the· provlsions of the Statute, as the transfers iO: their
·ravp_ur .are in view of the provisionS of .the Act now nu11 and void. The ·
appellants, who were aggrieved by th~ said notices challenged the vires of the
Act. According- to them, ss. 4 & S of -the Act violated lhe provisions of
Arts 14, 19 · (1) (f), 31 and 31A of the Constitution. The High Court for
reasons recorded in the Judgii1ent upheld the validity ot the Act ·and dis· .
•missed the, p'etitions. However,· the High Court granted certificates ,ui:ider
Arts. 132 & 133 of the Constitution and hence.the app_eals.
Dismissing the appe~ls, the Coui:t
·HELD:. I: I. Sections 4 .& S of the Karnataka Scheduled Castca
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfers of Certain }.ands) Act, 1978
is constituliona~Jy val_id~L510FJ
·
·
•
'
' .
,
~MANCHEoOWDA v. KARNATAKA
503
1 : 1. However, the prov1s1o~l of the Act must be read down and _
held that the Act will apply to
transfers of grapted lands made in breach of
the condition_ imposing prohibition ori tfansfer. of granted lands only in
'those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable at
the. date of the commencement of the Act and had n9t Jost its defeasible
character at the d;i.te wjien ~he A:t c.1m~ into force. -Transferees Of granted
land having a p~rfected ~nd not~ void:J.ble title at the cOmmencement of the
Act must be held to be outside the pale cf the provisions of the Act. S: 4 Of
the -Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the
title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commence-
m.:nt of the.Act. Granied lands which had b~en transferred after the expiry
of the period
_of
prohibition
~o not come within the purView
of
the Act·, an~ cannot be proceeded ag1inst under the provisions of this Act.
The' provisions o( the Act ·mak.! this position clear, as ~s .. 4· ~ 5 IJecome
applicable only when grante& lan\ls. are transferred in bt{'ach of ihe condition
relating to.prohibition of such lands. Granted lands transferred before the
cominence111ent of the Act and not iP contraventio-n of prohibition On_ trans-
. f~r are clearly beyo.qd the scope and p:.irview of the Present Act. Also in
case where gfanted lands had been. tran.sferred · be for_~ the commencement
of the Act in violat'fon of_ the condition regarding prohibition on such
trartsfer and the transferee who- had initially 3.oquired only a voidable'
·title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the grant'ed lands
bY prescription by long and continuous.enjoyment therofin accordance with
law Defore the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not
come wilhiii the purview of the present Act, as the title of such trinsferees to
the granted lands has beeri perfected before the commence:1nent oJ the ~ct.
Since at the tiate of the comm:encemen t of the AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.