KUNTEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is by the unsuccessful petitioners in Writ Petition No.8417/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District dated 21.1.2008 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.10.2005 declaring the sale transaction made in respect of 5 acres of dry land in Sy.No.48 of Sonnenahalli village, Tiputur Taluk, Tumkur District by the husband of the third respondent herein in favour of the appellant/writ petitioners as null and void and consequentially directing resumption and restoration of the said property in favour of third respondent.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are: Dry land of an extent of 5 acres located in Sy.No.48 of Sonnenahalli village, Tiptur Taluk was granted under Rule 43(6) (a) (ii) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code to the husband of the third respondent herein on 17.1.1960 for a reduced upset price of Rs.25/- per acre. 2.2. Rule 43 (6) (a) ii) reads as hereunder: ?6(a) (ii) ? Where the grant is made for an upset price or for a reduced upset price, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of the grant.? 2.3. Though the said land was granted on 17.1.1960 to the husband of the third respondent, he had not chosen to pay the said reduced upset price namely, Rs.125/- for the entire 5 acres of land. But he paid the said amount only on 30.12.1974 with a bond fee of Rs.20/- and thereafter, saguvali chit was issued to the husband of the third respondent on 14.11.1977. Of course, there is a delay in issuing saguvali chit in favour of husband of the third respondent. While issuing the saguvali chit on 14.11.1977, the Tahsildar inserted a condition in the saguvali chit to the effect that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of saguvali chit, i.e. 14.11.1977. However, in the meanwhile, the husband of the third respondent had already sold the impugned land by sale deed dated 31.12.1974 to the appellants/writ petitioners.

(3.) FROM the above undisputed facts, it cannot be said that the impugned grant in favour of the husband of the third respondent is not a grant made free of cost attracting Rule 6(a) (i) of the Rules, but one made for an upset price or for reduced upset price. Of Course, there cannot be any dispute that the upset price was equivalent to the market value of the land as on 1960. The mere imposition of Rs.25 per acre or Rs.125/- for 5 acres as upset price cannot be said to be the market value but it can still be said as reduced upset price, which is permissible under Rule 6(a) (ii) and the competent authority in the instant case, has not waived off the payment of the said upset price, but on the contrary, the amount paid by the husband of the third respondent towards the impugned grant made on 17.1.1960 has been accepted by the Tahsildar along with bond fee on 30.12.1974, which only means that the husband of the third respondent as well as the authorities have acted only on the basis of the grant so made for a reduced upset price which falls under Rule 6(a) (ii) of the Rules, in which event, as the date of handing over the impugned land to the husband of the third respondent immediately after the grant on 17.1.1960 is not disputed either by the third respondent or by the competent authorities, the only relevant rule which is applicable in the instant case is Rule 6(a) (ii) and not 6 (a) (i) and accordingly, the date of grant for the purpose of computation of the period of prohibition operates only from 17.1.1960 and expires on 16.1.1970 as per Rule 6(a) (ii) of the Rules. 5.2. In our considered opinion, even though, the Special Tahsildar while issuing the saguvali chit has implanted condition No.8 that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of saguvali chit, the same is contrary to Rule 6 (a) (ii) and is held to be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as against the said condition Rule 6 (a) (ii) which is applied for the grant made for a reduced upset price shall prevail, in which case, the period of prohibition is only 10 years from the date of the grant and not 15 years either from the date of the grant i.e. 17.1.1960 or from the date of issuance of saguvali chit i.e. on 14.11.1977. 5.3. But the above legal position has been overlooked by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 21.1.2008 while affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.10.2005 and they have also failed to take note of the government notification dated 10.5.1960 wherein Rule 43-G (4) was inserted adding the period of prohibition as 15 years, which notification admittedly came into force from 10.5.1960 subsequent to the grant, namely, 17.1.1960. 5.4. That apart, our view is also fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Hambamma Vs. The State of Karnataka And Others reported in ILR 1999 (1) KAR. 261 and in the case of Narasareddy And Another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga And Others reported in ILR 2002 (2) KAR. 2758. 5.5. In the first Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Hambamma, referred to above, it is held that the authorities have no power to impose any condition contrary to Rule and therefore, the condition imposed by the Tahsildar in the saguvali chit in contrary to the Rules is without power and jurisdiction. 5.6. In the second decision referred to above, in the case of Narasareddy And Another, the Full Bench of this Court, held that if the grantee is put in possession from the date of grant, the grant certificate has to date back from the date of possession even though saguvali chit was delivered subsequently. It is relevant to refer to para-13, which reads as hereunder: 13????According to the relevant rules after an application is made for grant of land it has to be processed the lower level and then the authority competent to grant such land grants the same. After an order of grant is made a grant certificate which is in the nature of a title deed or a saguvali chit is to be issued to the grantee demarcating the extent of land granted to him and on such certificate being issued he can enter upon the land and cultivate the same. However, in practice it was noticed though order or grant was made the grantee was not put in possession. He was put in possession later and saguvali chit is a document evidencing the factum of delivery of possession to the grantee. There are also cases where even before the order of grant the grantee was already in possession and an order of grant was made subsequently. Therefore, on the date of the order of grant if the grantee is put in possession and grant certificate is also issued there is no difficulty in holding that period of non-alienation is to be computed from the date of grant itself. But if on the date of grant order possession is not delivered, but possession is delivered subsequently under a grant certificate or a saguvali chit, then that would be the effective date from which the grantee is entitled to enter upon the land and cultivate the land and enjoy and have the benefit of the land granted and therefore the period of non-alienation is to be computed from the said date. The whole object is that grantee should enjoy the land by cultivating the same for a period stipulated in the grant order or the grant certificate. If the grantee is already in possession prior to the date of grant as he had no title to the said land date of order of the grant confers on him the title to the land and therefore it is the date of order of grant which is to be taken into consideration. The legislative intent is clear from the words used in 1969 Rules where the term ?date of grant? was deleted and ?date of possession? was introduced. In either of the Rules date of saguvali chit is not referred to all. If date of saguvali chit is to be taken as the date on which grantee is put in possession the irrespective of the date of grant it is the date on which the saguvali chit was issued that is to be taken into consideration for computing the period. But even if on the date of saguvali chit possession is not delivered and it is delivered subsequently, the date of saguvali chit loses significance. But if possession is delivered on the date of grant itself and saguvali chit is issued at a later date even then the date of saguvali chit is of no consequence. Therefore, the crucial date in our opinion would be the date of taking possession of the granted land by grantee, as is clear from the language employed in Rule 9 of 1969 Rules. Merely because in the 1956, 1958 Rules the words used are date of grant and not date of taking possession, it cannot be said date of taking possession is of no consequence in computing the period of non-alienation clause in respect of grants prior to 1969 Rules. If date of taking possession is taken into consideration, the controversy which has given rise to the aforesaid decisions would lose importance and pales into insignificance. It would also achieve the object sought to be achieved not only by the rules but also by enacting the Act. The letter of law is to be taken as conclusive, unless a literal interpretation of the statute would result in such absurdity and unreasonableness as to make it too obvious that the legislature could not have meant what it said. It is well settled when on a construction of a statute two views are possible, one which results in an anomaly and the other not, it is the duty of the Court to adopt the letter and not the former seeking consolation in the thought that the law bristles with anomalies. The situation calls for a harmonious construction. The soul of the legislature is to see that the property granted to members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe remained with them or enjoyed by them atleast for the period stipulated in the grant. These grantees are members of the weaker section of the society; they are exploited class; that special statutory protection is needed to safeguard their interest; the land was granted to landless people and if alienation is allowed unchecked then the object of the very grant would be defeated. Therefore, any interpretation to be placed on the rule should be to further the object of the legislation and to prevent any mischief being perpetuated by persons with vested interests. In other words, as the land has been granted to such landless persons with some conditions, the object of the Act is that they should enjoy the property for which they have been granted, meaning thereby, the period will start from the day they have started enjoyment of the land, that is, from the date of possession. Therefore, in our view, if any person purchases land from a person belonging to weaker section of the society, that is, scheduled castes/Scheduled Tribes community, the prohibition period will count from the date of possession. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, the expression date of grant for the purpose of computing the period of computation against alienation under 1956 and 1958 Rules has to be understood as from the date of taking possession of the land. Therefore, if possession has been delivered prior to the date of order of grant then the date of order of grant, if possession is delivered on the date of order of grant the date of order of grant and if possession is delivered subsequent to the order of grant, the date of taking of possession is the period from which the period of computation has to be computed.? (emphasis supplied)