SHIVANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 25-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1105
SHIVANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6212 of 2013)
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Land Laws – Free grant of land to person from Scheduled
Caste community – Such land sold to appellant in violation of Rules
under the Mysore Land Revenue Code – Post the transaction, the
1978 Act came into force on 01.01.1979 – Respondent No.4 claims
to be the grandson of the original grantee – Neither the original
owner, nor his son or the grandson/respondent No.4 laid any claim
for the land of appellant for annulment of transfer till 04.10.2000
when an application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner u/
s.4 of the Act of 1978 – The Assistant Commissioner passed an
order invalidating the sale and seeking to restore the land to
respondent No.4 – Propriety – Held: Widest amplitude must be given
to protect the rights of the SC/ ST community by construing the
enactment (Act of 1978) liberally in their favour to achieve the
objective with which it was enacted – But there can be exceptions
such as the present case, where despite the clear bar of Rule 43(8)
[since the transaction in question was much before the Act of 1978
came into force] an extraordinary time period had elapsed –  The
transaction took place on 20.12.1971, seven years before the Act
of 1978 came into force – Respondent No.4 was born some time in
1967 and thus, would have attained majority around the year 1985
– At that stage at least he was aware and entitled to enforce the
rights which he claims were deprived of by transfer of land by a
registered document by his grandfather – He did not do so and in
fact his father also never did so – It is after a lapse of another 12
years from even his attaining majority that respondent No.4 sought
to exercise the rights – The period of delay was 21 years from the
date the Act of 1978 came into force and 30 years from the
transaction – Inordinate delay cannot be condoned and the period
of delay can by no stretch of imagination be said to be reasonable
– Resultantly, impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner set
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1105
1105
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
aside – The land would continue to vest with the appellant(s) –
Rules under the Mysore Land Revenue Code – Rule 43(8) –
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition on
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – s.4 – Delay / Laches.
Vivek M. Hinduja & Ors. v. M. Ashwatha & Ors. (2020)
14 SCC 228; Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of
Karnataka & Anr. (2020) 14 SCC 232 – relied on.
Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council (1956) AC
736 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 14 SCC 228
relied on
Para 11
(2020) 14 SCC 232
relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6212
of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2009 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1451 of 2005 (SC/ST).
S. N. Bhat, Adv. for the Appellants.
Arvind Verma, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Thakur, Vipasha Singh, Ajay
Kanojiya, G. N. Reddy, T. S. Sabarish, Vishnu Unnikrishnan,
Dr. R. Maheswari, Ms. Archana Nishanth, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. The Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was enacted and
brought into force from 01.01.1979 as a measure of amelioration and
protection of lands granted to the SC/ST community which was sought
to be purchased by third parties depriving the very objective of providing
economic empowerment to these communities. So we must begin by
recording that the widest amplitude must be given to protect the rights of
these communities by construing the enactment liberally in their favour
to achieve the objective with which it was enacted. But there can be
exceptions!
2. We are faced with one such exception here in the context of
the factual matrix before us. In the present case, two acres of land was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
granted to one Late Junjappa on 07.06.1941. Junjappa belonged to the
Adi Karnataka Caste (Scheduled Caste). The land is stated to be free
of cost. However, we may notice from the impugned order that apparently
the records could not be produced by the revenue authorities as they
were not traceable nor the document for conferment of right were
produced by respondent No.4/claimant. However, conclusion was sought
to be derived on the basis of the other material on record that this 

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