LexSATYAN versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. SATYAN v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2976-2983 of 2019) APRIL 30, 2019 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: s. 4 – Prohibition of transfer of granted lands – The grant put a condition of non-alienation of the granted land for a period of 15 years – The granted land transferred to the appellants by the beneficiaries of the grant, after 15 years of the grant – Application alleging that the sale deeds were illegal as they were executed without prior permission of competent authority – Asstt. Commissioner set aside the sale deeds – Order confirmed by Deputy Commissioner in appeal – Order further confirmed in writ petition and writ appeal by the High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Plea of appellants that permission for transfer was not required post the period of 15 years – Held: Appellant throughout having sought to make out a case based on prior permission, cannot take such new plea before Supreme Court – Sub-section (2) of s. 4 puts an absolute ban on transfer after commencement of the Act without prior permission of the Government – Therefore, after a period of 15 years also, prior permission was required – The competent authority had acted within its jurisdiction to nullify the transactions which were contrary to the statutory provisions of s. 4(2) – Delay of 8 years by itself cannot come in the way of the competent authority taking the action, the Act being a beneficial legislation – Karnatka Land Grant Rules, 1969 – r. 9 – Delay/Laches. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 All the orders below are predicated on a reasoning that while the appellant sought to make out a case that permission had been granted, no such permission had actually been granted by the competent authority, and the documents furnished in this behalf were found to be forged and fabricated. [2019] 6 S.C.R. 872 872 A B C D E F G H 873 There ought to have been full disclosure of documents. The criminal proceedings, however, are still pending qua that aspect. It is not necessary to non-suit the appellant on this ground itself. [Para 25][893-A-B] 1.2 The appellant had throughout sought to make out a case based on prior permission by the competent authority. It was nobody’s case that permission was not required to be obtained. The appellant, faced with a factual situation where the permissions do not exist, now sought to build another bridge to contend that be that as it may, no permission is required. Such a plea cannot be countenanced. At this stage of the civil appeal, without any pleadings being there, it is not even really open to the appellant to have pleaded the interpretation they so sought to plead. This cannot be categorized as a legal plea alone, and that too raised at the fifth level of scrutiny in the hierarchy of proceedings. [Para 26][893-C-D] 1.3 The non-alienation clause existing in the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and incorporated in the grants, was found to be inadequate to protect the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who were given land owing to their ignorance and poverty. Influential and powerful sections of society were stated to be obtaining sales and mortgages for consideration, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes became victims of circumstances. The objective of the State Government in enacting the said Act was to prevent such misuse and, therefore, in categorical terms, transfer with permission was prescribed. This would be de hors the terms of the grant or the said Rules. Thus, whether it was a case where it was within the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years, or the period beyond fifteen (15) years, such permission would be required. [Para 27] [893-E-G] 1.4 No doubt Rule 9 of the said Rules, enacted under a different enactment, prior to the enactment of the said Act (and thereafter even amended), does contemplate transfer between the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years on certain terms and conditions, which are required to be satisfied by the Deputy Commissioner. There is, in fact, a prohibition in grant of such permission until and unless there is satisfaction of the Deputy SATYAN v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS. A B C D E F G H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. Commissioner that the alienation is for the purpose of acquiring other land, or for improving the remaining land and that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.