SIDDEGOWDA versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ORS .

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 13-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SIDDEGOWDA 
v. 
ASSISTANT COMMISSION~R AND ORS . 
. FEBRUARY 13. 2003 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.1.] 
Karna1aka Land Revenue Rules: 
rr.43-C and 43-G-Grant of land-Grantee alienating the land in I 968-
C S.4 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of 
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act declaring certain alienations made in 
contravention of terms of grant as null and void-Notice uls.4 issued to 
transferer for resumption-Contention that in the grant certificate there was 
no clause prohibiting alienation and the grant v·as for upset price which was 
D equivalent to market price and as such prohibition under r.43-G was not 
applicable-Rejected-Held, the upset price and market price are different 
concepts, though in certain cases upset price may be market value of land-
But that does not mean thdt upset price fixed shall always be equivalent to 
market value-Even on facts, upset price does not seem to be market value of 
land-Besides, the grant contained a clause that further enjoyment of land 
E was subject to Land Revenue Code and Rules-Therefore, prohibition under 
r.43-G would apply-Appeal of transferee dismissed-Karnataka Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 
!978~S.4. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4924 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.1996 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. Nci. 2531 of 1992. 
G.V. Chandrasekharan for P.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
G 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondent. 
H 
. Arvind Verma, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, for State ofKamataka. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : . 
One Nanjaiah alias Gungaiah was allotted I acre 20 guntas of land by 
1108. 
SIDDEGOWDA 1·. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 
1109 
the State for a total sum of Rs. 750. The land allotted to Gungaiah was A 
purchased by the appellant herein on I 0.9. 1968. This allotment was made 
under the Mysore Land Revenue Act 1888. The Karnataka State Legislature 
passed the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of 
Transfer of certain lands) Act. 1978 and it came into force on 1.1.1979. 
Under section 4 of the said Act. certain, alienations made in contravention of 
the terms of grant of land were declared null and void. Pursuant to that, 
notice was issued under section 4 of the Act to the appellant alleging that the 
sale in favour of the appellant by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent 3-
A to E was violative of provisions of the Act and the land was to be resumed 
B 
and possession be given back to these respondents. The appellant filed 
objection and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 26.3. 1990 ordered C 
resumption of the land. The appellant challenged the same before the Deputy 
Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The appellant thereafter filed Writ 
Petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The same was dismissed. 
Appellant thereafter filed a Writ Appeal and by the impugned judgment the 
Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal. 
D 
We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for 
the respondents. The main contention urged by the appellants counsel was 
that the land granted to Gungaiah was for an upset price fixed as per the rules 
and the upset price being equivalent to market value of the land, the prohibition 
against alienating of the property, envisaged under Rule 43(g) of the Mysore E 
Land Revenue Code is not applicable. The counsel for the appellant also 
contended that in the "Sagu Vah Chit" (grant certificate) executed in favour 
of the original grantee Gungaiah there was no specific clause prohibiting 
alienation of the land to any other party. Therefore, it was argued that the 
sale in favour of the appellant was perfectly valid and section 4 of the Act 
has no application. 
F 
The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the 
grant in favour of Gungaiah was effected on payment of the occupancy price 
payable by the grantee, though it is described as upset' price and the same 
does not amount to market value of the land. The counsel for the State also G 
supported this contention and submitted that any grant of land made under 
Rule 43-C would automatically attract the provision prohibition contained in 
Rule 43-G if the grant is for any amount less than the market value. 
The counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the various 
rules applicable to the grant of land. 

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