REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4255 OF 2002

G. KRISHNAREDDY      …. Appellant

Versus

SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.    …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated  20.10.1998  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  

Karnataka  High  Court  in  Writ  Appeal  No.  3269  of  1998  

dismissing the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the case are that the  

disputed land was allotted through a grant by the State of

Karnataka  to  one  Smt.  Munemma on 08.01.1957 with  a  

condition prohibiting any alienation of the land for a period  

of 15 years. Gopalappa, late father of the appellant herein,  

purchased  the  said  land  from  Smt.  Munemma  under  a  

registered sale deed dated 20.12.1968.  

3. In  view  of  the  coming  into  force  of  the  Karnataka  

Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  [Prohibition  of  

Transfer  of  Certain  Lands]  Act,  1978  [for  short  “the  

Prohibition  of  Transfer  Act”]  Smt.  Munemma  made  an  

application under the said Prohibition of  Transfer Act for  

the resumption of the land in question on the ground that it  

was purchased by Gopalappa, late father of the appellant,  

in  violation  of  the  prohibition  clause  of  the  grant.  By  

passing an order dated 07.06.1984 Assistant Commissioner  

allowed the application filed by Smt. Munemma which was  

also  confirmed  by  the  Deputy  Commissioner  in  appeal.  

Against  the  said  order  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner  the  

predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed a Writ Petition  

before the Karnataka High Court, which remanded back the  

matter  to  the  appropriate  authority  for  its  disposal  in

accordance  with  law.  Pursuant  thereto  the  Assistant  

Commissioner  after  conducting  an  enquiry  vide  its  order  

dated 10.10.1995 held that the purchaser is in possession  

of  the  land  for  more  than  12  years  which  decision  was  

further confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner.  

Against the aforesaid order a Writ Petition was filed by the  

heirs of the original grantee which was registered as Writ  

Petition No. 26848/1997.

4. Learned  Single  Judge  who  heard  the  aforesaid  Writ  

Petition  vide  order  dated  15.06.1998  held  that  the  

authorities below erred in law in applying the principles of  

adverse possession to the case in hand. The learned Single  

Judge held that since the purchaser had taken the stand  

that by purchasing the said land under a valid sale deed he  

had been enjoying the cultivation and possession in his own  

right  as  owner  thereof,  therefore,  he  is  precluded  from  

setting up the inconsistent plea of adverse possession either  

as against the State or the grantee. It was also held that the  

aforesaid allotted land through a grant was purchased by  

the purchaser in contravention of the prohibition clause of

the grant in question. Consequently, the said Writ Petition  

filed by the heirs of the original grantee succeeded and the  

impugned  orders  were  quashed  and  the  Assistant  

Commissioner was directed to take action according to law  

to restore possession of the said land to the respondent.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order a Writ Appeal was  

filed by the appellant herein which was dismissed by order  

dated 20.10.1998 as against which the present appeal has  

been filed, on which we heard learned counsel appearing for  

the appellant, who during the course of his argument had  

taken us through the records also. The respondent despite  

service did not enter appearance.

6. The  land  involved  in  the  present  case  is  Sy  No.  53  

measuring  2  acres  situated  in  Village-Hebbatta,  Taluk-

Srinivaspur, District-Kolar.  While granting land in favour of  

the  predecessor-in-interest  of  the  respondent  herein  

through  a  grant  dated  8th January,  1957  it  was  clearly  

stipulated  in  the  grant  that  the  said  land  cannot  be  

transferred  for  15  years.  Subsequently,  however,  on

20.12.1968 the said land was purchased by the late father  

of appellant. Earlier to the same an agreement to sale was  

also entered into between the parties on 25.12.1965.

7. However,  after  coming  into  force  of  the  Karnataka  

Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  [Prohibition  of  

Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, w.e.f., 01.01.1979, the  

original  grantee  -  Smt.  Munemma  made  an  application  

under Section 5 of the Prohibition of Transfer Act before the  

Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land on  

the ground that it was purchased by the late father of the  

appellant in violation of the prohibition clause of the grant.  

The  application  of  Smt.  Munemma  was  allowed  by  the  

Assistant Commissioner which was also upheld by Deputy  

Commissioner in appeal.  Against the said decision of  the  

Deputy  Commissioner  a  Writ  Petition  was  filed  by  the  

appellant  before  the  Karnataka  High  Court,  which  

remanded back the matter to be decided by the appropriate  

authority in accordance with law.

8. Pursuant  to  the  said  order  of  the  High  Court  an  

application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner. At  

this stage it would be appropriate to extract the provisions  

of Section 4 and 5 of the said Prohibition Act: -

“4. PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF GRANTED LANDS-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law,  agreement,   contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land   made either  before or after  the  commencement of   this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of   such land or the law providing for such grant,  or   sub-Section (2) shall be null and void and no right   title or interest in such land shall be conveyed not   be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.

(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act   transfer  or  acquire  by  transfer  any  granted  land   without the previous permission of the Government.

(3) The provision of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall apply   also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree   or order of a civil court or of an award or order of   any other authority.  

5. RESUMPTION AND RESTITUTION OF GRANTED LANDS-

(1) Where an application by any interested person or on   information given in writing by any person or suo motu,   and  after  such  enquiry  as  he  deems  necessary  the   Assistant  Commissioner  is  satisfied  that  the  transfer  of   any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of   section 4, he may –

a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all   persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be   prescribed;

provided that  no such order shall  be made except after   giving  the  person  affected  a  reasonable  opportunity  of   being heard;

b)  restore  such land to  the  original  grantee  or  his  legal   heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the   land  in  such  grantee  or  legal  heir  such  land  shall  be   deemed to  have vested in  the  Government free from all   encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a   person  belonging  to  any  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  or   Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to   grant of lands.

(1A)  After  an  enquiry  referred  to  in  sub-section(1)  the   Assistant  Commissioner  may  if  he  is  satisfied  that   transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an   order accordingly.

(2)  Subject  to  the  orders  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner   under Section 5A, any order passed under sub-section (1)   and (1A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any   court of  law and no injunction  shall  be granted by any   court in respect of  any proceeding taken or about to  be   taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any   power conferred by or under this Act.

(3)  For  the  purposes  of  this  section  where  any  granted   land  is  in  the  possession  of  a  person  other  than  the   original grantee or his legal heir it shall be presumed until   the contrary is proved that such person has acquired the   land  by  a  transfer  which  is  null  and  void  under  the   provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4.”

The  Assistant  Commissioner  after  hearing  the  parties,  

however, rejected the application holding that the late father of  

the  appellant  is  protected  from  dispossession  by  way  of

application of the plea of adverse possession which decision  

was also confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner.  

But  in  a  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  respondent  the  learned  

Single Judge of the High Court set aside the said findings of  

the  authorities  below  and  directed  for  the  restoration  of  

possession of the land in favour of the respondent. Learned  

Single  Judge further  held that  no transfer  could have been  

made by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent, i.e., Smt.  

Munemma and, therefore, alienation made in favour of the late  

father of the appellant was contrary to the prohibition clause  

of the said grant as also to the provisions of law.  

9. It  is  clear  from the  aforesaid  position  that  in  order  to  

overcome the aforesaid difficulties the appellant took up the  

plea  of  adverse  possession  by  way  of  defence.  The  

predecessor-in-interest  of  the  appellant  claimed title  over  

the said land by virtue of purchase and at no stage he had  

put up any hostile claim to the property. The plea was of  

ownership by right of purchase and therefore a lawful right  

to  enjoy  the  property.  The  learned  Single  Judge  while  

allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent has made

reference to the aforesaid position and held that the plea of  

adverse possession was not available to the predecessor-in-

interest of  the appellant in law and in view of such legal  

position the authorities below erred in accepting the plea of  

adverse  possession in respect  of  the  granted land.  There  

appears to be justification in the findings of the High Court.

10. Even otherwise, we may refer to the decision of this Court  

in K.T. Buchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner and Others  

reported in (1994) 3 SCC 536 where at paragraph 8 of the  

said judgment this Court has held thus: -

“8. On a plain reading, granted land will mean, any   land granted by the Government to a person, who is   a  member  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  or  Scheduled   Tribes which includes land allotted to such persons.   Grant  may  be  of  different  types;  it  may  be  by   absolute  transfer  of  the  interest  of  the  State   Government to the person concerned; it may be only   by transfer of the possession of the land, by way of   allotment, without conveying the title over such land   of the State Government. If  by grant, the transferee   has  acquired  absolute  title  to  the  land in  question   from the State Government, then subject to protection   provided by the different provisions of the Act, he will   be  subject  to  the  same  period  of  limitation  as  is   prescribed for other citizens by the provisions of the   Limitation  Act,  in  respect  of  extinguishment  of  title   over land by adverse possession. On the other hand,   if the land has been allotted by way of grant and the  

title  remains  with  the  State  Government,  then  to   extinguish  the  title  that  has  remained of  the  State   Government by adverse possession, by a transferee   on the basis of an alienation made in his favour by   an allottee, the period of limitation shall be 30 years.   Incidentally,  it  may be mentioned that  some of  the   States  in  order  to  protect  the  members  of  the   Scheduled Tribes from being dispossessed from the   lands which belong to them and of which they are   absolute  owners,  for  purpose  of  extinguishment  of   their  title  by  adverse  possession,  have  prescribed   special period of limitation, saying that it shall be 30   years.  In  Bihar,  vide  Regulation  No.  1  of  1969,  in   Article  65  of  the  Limitation  Act,  it  has  been  prescribed that  it  would be 30 years  in  respect  of   immovable  property  belonging  to  a  member  of  the   Scheduled  Tribes  as  specified  in  Part  III  to  the   Schedule  to  the  Constitution  (Scheduled  Tribes)   Order, 1950.”

11. Therefore, so as to ascertain whether in the present case  

the period of limitation would be 12 years or 30 years, we  

have perused the grant given to the predecessor-in-interest  

of the Respondent, a copy of which was placed on record by  

the appellant. A bare perusal of the aforesaid grant would  

indicate that nowhere in the said grant it has been clearly  

and specifically stated that it has been an absolute transfer  

of the right in title and possession by the State Government  

to the concerned person. A bare perusal of the document  

would  also  indicate  that  it  was  only  a  transfer  of  the

possession of the land by way of allotment  and in none of  

the clauses of the grant it is stated that it is a conveyance of  

the title over such land by the State Government. Clause 1  

of the grant gives authority to the grantee to clear the land  

and to bring it to cultivable stage. It further provides that  

the grantee can enjoy the property for 15 years. Not only the  

grant  was  only  for  a  limited  period  but  it  was  also  for  

cultivation. Therefore, it was a grant for possession by way  

of cultivation for a limited period and it cannot be said that  

by the aforesaid grant the transferee had acquired absolute  

title  to  the  land in question from the  State  Government.  

Therefore, the period of limitation which would have been  

applicable in the present case would be 30 years,  in the  

light of the ratio laid down by the said decision.

12. In any case the appellant has failed to make out any  

case for interference. We find no merit in this appeal, which  

stands  dismissed,  leaving  the  parties  to  bear  their  own  

costs.

............................................J

         [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

.........................................J           [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, July 18, 2011.