N. VENKATESHAPPA versus MUNEMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 15-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 973 
N. VENKATESHAPPA 
v .. 
MUNEMMA & ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!Nos.135!-!352of2016) 
FEBRUARY 15,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 - ss. 2(a), 4(3), 5, 6, 7 -
Re-grant of Inam land in favour ofalienor - Right of an alienee -
On facts, agricultural land was Thalavari Inamthi land in the hands 
of original owners - Alienation of Inam 1and by sale deed dated 
13.05.1971, in favour of N-alienee and he was put in possession of 
the land - Re-grant of land in favour of alienorlholder of office on 
31.03.1982 in terms of the Act - Re-grant proceedings attained 
finality - Eviction of alienee from the land - Right of alienee upon 
re-grant of land in favour of alienor - Held: Upon re-grant of the 
land in favour of the holder of a Inam land, re-grant must enure to 
the benefit of the alieitee, if such alienation was between OJ.02J963 
and 07.08.1978 i.e. between the period of appointed date and the 
date when the _;Jmendment Act came into force - Upon such-re-
grant, the title of a holder of the fnam land would relate back to the 
date. of coming into force of the Act - Alienation effected by them, 
by principles of 'feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the 
benefit of the alienee who would get good title to such land after 
such re-grant - Alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. As laid-down in *Laks'1ma11a Gowda and **Syed 
Bhasheer A flamed, upon re-grant of the laud in favour of the holder 
of a Service-loam, the re-grant must enure to the benefit of the 
alienee, if such alienatio'n was between 01.02.1963 and 
07.08.1978. Further, upo'! such re-grant, the title of a holder of 
the Service_-inam land would relate back. to the .date of coming 
. into force of the Act. In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the 
title of the predecessors of the respondents would relate back. 
The alienation effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of 
"feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the 
alienee who would get good iitle to such land after such re-grant. 
973 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A Where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 
07.08.1978 the alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". In 
the circumstances, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate 
proceedings for eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village 
Offices Act, 1961 against the alienee, namely, the predecessor-
B 
c 
D 
in-interest of the appellant. The judgment and orders of the High 
Court are set aside and that of the trial court as affirmed by the 
appellate court is restored. [Paras 15, 16] [978-E-H; 979-A-B] 
*Laksh111a11a Gowda v. State of Karna/aka (1981) 1 
Karnataka Law Journal 1; **Syed Bhasheer Ahamed 
v. State of Karnataka 1994 (1) KLJ 385 - approved. 
Case Law Reference 
(1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1 
approved 
1994 (1.) KLJ 385 
approved 
Paras 14, 15 
Paras 14, 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 35 l-
1352 of2016. 
from the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 and 01.06.2011 
of the High Court ofKarnataka in RSA No. 323 of2008 and in Review 
Petition No. 4 76of2010. 
E 
Sampat Anand Shetty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the 
F 
G 
H 
Appellant. 
S. N. Bhat, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT J. I. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 
in Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011 
passed in R.P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at 
Bangalore. 
3. The Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 abolishes village 
offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the 
Constitution oflndia. The appointed date under Section 2(a) of the Act 
is 01.02.1963. Section 4 of the Act abolishes all village offices on and 
with effect from the appointed date and sub-section (3) of Section 4 
stipulates that subjectto the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 land annexed 
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS. 
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
975 
to a village office shall stand resumed and be subject to the payment of A 
land revenue as if it were unalienated land or ryotwari land. Section 5 
of the Act lays down that the lands so resumed under Section 4(3) of the 
Act and not falling under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act be granted to the 
person who were holders of the village offices ;rnmediately prior to the 
appointed d

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