RUDRAPPA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) an area of 2 acres of agricultural land out of survey No. 53/4 in the village, kamasagara in channagiri taluk of shimoga district, was granted by the competent authority in favour of the late husband of respondent 3. The saguvali chit, which is in the nature of grant certificate, was issued in favour of the grantee on April 17, 1940, in accordance with the Mysore land grant rules. The grant was subject to certain conditions and the principal condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the land at any time. The government had a right to resume the land in case the grantee committed any breach of the conditions. In spite of the condition of non-alienability, the grantee sold the land to the appellant's father by registered sale deed dated may 31, 1957. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father and after his demise, the appellant, continued to remain in possession from the date of sale.

(2.) the government of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the act"), to provide for the prohibition of transfer of certain lands granted by the government to persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the state, the act came into force from January 1, 1979. Section 4 of the Act, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, shall be null and void. The expression "granted land" is defined under Section 3(b) and means any land granted by the government to a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes. Section 5 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the assistant commissioner, if satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under Section 4, may take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof and restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. In pursuance of the Provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act, respondent 3 approached the assistant commissioner for resumption of the land. The assistant commissioner, shimoga sub-division, shimoga, by order dated October 25, 1980, directed that the land should be resumed by the government by dispossessing the appellant and possession should be restored to respondent 3. The appellant carried appeal before the special deputy commissioner, shimoga, but, the appeal ended in dismissal by order dated June 27, 1986. The appellant then preferred writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the learned single judge, but, the petition ended in dismissal by the impugned judgment dated September 3, 1991. The learned single judge held that the rules prevalent on the date of the grant, that is, April 17, 1940, prohibited the grantee from alienating the land at any time and consequently, the sale deed in favour of the appellant's father was void as it is in breach of the terms of the grant. The decision of the learned single judge is under challenge.

(3.) the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the permanent prohibition prescribed by rules framed under the Mysore land revenue code and prevalent on April 17, 1940, when the grant certificate was issued in favour of the husband of respondent 3, was violative of article 19(1)(f) of the constitution. It was contended that article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution provided till its repeal, that all citizens shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. It was contended that on the date of the sale in favour of the appellant's father, that is, on may 31, 1957, the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) was available and it was open for the grantee to not only hold the land, but also to dispose of the same and consequently, the prohibition to alienate prescribed under the rules framed under the Mysore land revenue code was unenforceable. The learned counsel referred to the Provisions of article 13 of the Constitution to urge that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution insofar as they are inconsistent with the Provisions of part-iii, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. The submission is that the Rule, which prescribed that the land granted cannot be alienated at any time in future, deprives to the grantee of the fundamental right to dispose of the property. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. The grant in favour of the members of a scheduled caste was made by the government with an object that the grantee himself would enjoy the land. Experience had shown that persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, to whom the lands were granted, were, because of their poverty, lack of education and general backwardness, exploited by various persons who could and would take advantage of the said plight of these persons for depriving them of their lands. The rules were framed under the Mysore land revenue code with the object that the grantees will not transfer the lands and are not exploited by persons having better financial position. The imposition of the condition of prohibition on transfer could not, therefore, be considered to constitute any unreasonable restriction on the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted lands. The imposition of such a condition in the very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and legal. The grant cannot be equated to the sale of the property by the government and the grant was made with a particular object that the grantee would personally cultivate that land and enjoy the fruits to come up in life. The object of the grant cannot be defeated by permitting transfers and therefore, in our judgment, it is futile to suggest that the condition prescribed for prohibition from alienation was in breach of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) of the constitution. The contention of the learned counsel that the condition should be declared as void in view of the Provisions of article 13(1) of the constitution, therefore, cannot be accepted.