Page 1

1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.    1351-1352    OF 2016  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL (C) Nos. 22677-22678 of 2011)  

N. Venkateshappa.              …… Appellant

Versus

Munemma & Ors.              …. Respondents

  JUDGMENT   

Uday Umesh Lalit J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 in  

Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011 passed in  

R.P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.

Page 2

2 3. The  Karnataka  Village  Offices  Act,  1961  abolishes  village  offices  

which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution  

of India.  The appointed date under Section 2(a) of the Act is 01.02.1963.  

Section 4 of the Act abolishes all village offices on and with effect from the  

appointed date and sub-section (3) of Section 4 stipulates that subject to the  

provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 land annexed to a village office shall stand  

resumed  and  be  subject  to  the  payment  of  land  revenue  as  if  it  were  

unalienated land or ryotwari land.  Section 5 of the Act lays down that the  

lands  so  resumed  under  Section  4(3)  of  the  Act  and  not  falling  under  

Sections 6 and 7 of the Act be granted to the person who were holders of the  

village offices immediately prior to the appointed date on such payment as  

prescribed.  Sections 6 and 7 of the Act lay down that if the land so resumed  

is  held  by an  authorized holder  it  shall  be  re-granted  to  such holder  on  

payment of occupancy price as prescribed.

4. The Act was amended by Act No.13 of 1978 which inter alia inserted  

Section 5(4) as under:-

“5(4) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (3)  shall  be  null  and  void  and  the  land  so  transferred  shall,  as  penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free  from all  encumbrances  and any person in  possession  thereof  shall  be  summarily  evicted  therefrom  by  the  Deputy  Commissioner and the land shall be disposed of in accordance

Page 3

3 with  the  law  applicable  to  the  disposal  of  unoccupied  unalienated lands:  

Provided that if the person who has transferred the land  in contravention of sub-section (3) is not alive, while disposing  of  such  land,  preference  shall  be  given to  the  heirs  of  such  person.   

Explanation.—For  removal  of  doubts  it  is  hereby  declared that in sub-section (3), and in this sub-section transfer  includes creation of a lease. ”

Section 7 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act now reads  

as under:

“7. Eviction of unauthorised holders etc.— (1) Where any land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 is  in  the  possession  of  an  unauthorised  holder  such  unauthorised  holder  shall  be  summarily  evicted  therefrom  and  the  land  shall  be  taken  possession  of  by  the  Deputy  Commissioner in accordance with law: Provided that no such  summary  eviction  shall  be  made  except  after  giving  the  person  affected  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  making  representation.  

(2) Any order of eviction passed under sub-section (1) 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  Deputy  Commissioner in pursuance of the power conferred by sub- section (1).  

(3) The land from which an unauthorised holder is   evicted  under sub-section (1) shall,-  

(a) if it was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to an  inferior village office be re-granted to the holder of such village  office; and   

(b) in other cases be disposed of in accordance with the law  applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands.”

Page 4

4

5. In Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka1,   Division Bench of the  

High Court had an occasion to consider questions including one concerning  

rights of an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the authorized  

holder.  It dealt with various issues but the one concerning the present matter  

was Question No. (iii) which was  to the following effect:

“(iii) Did an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or  the authorized holder, acquire title to such land, if the alienation  had taken place between the date of the coming into force of the  Principal Act and the date of the re-grant, after its re-grant to its  holder or the authorized holder under Section 5 or 6, as the case  may be, of the Principal Act ? ”

6. The answer  to  the  aforesaid  question  was given in  para 66 of  the  

Judgment in the following words-:

“Hence, our answer to the question is that if the holder or  the authorized holder of a Service Inam land had alienated  it after the Principal Act came into force and before it was  re-granted to him under Section 5 or 6 of the Principal Act,  the alienee acquired a title to that land after such re-grant to  his alienor.”

7. During the course of its discussion concerning the aforesaid question,  

it was also observed:-

1   (1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1

Page 5

5 “We have already held that though the holder or the authorized  holder of a Service Inam Land got title to such land only when  it was actually re-granted to him under S. 5 or 6 of the Principal  Act, such title related back to the date of coming into force of  that  Act.  From this,  it  would  follow that  if  he  purported  to  alienate such land before it was re-granted to him, but after the  Principal Act came into force, the doctrine of feeding the grant  by estoppels embodied in S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act,  would apply and the title he subsequently acquired on such re- grant of that land, would ensure to the benefit of his alienee,  who would get a good title to such land after such re-grant to  his alienor.”

8. The aforesaid view in  Lakshmana Gowda  1   was affirmed by Full  

Bench of the High Court in Syed Bhasheer Ahamed v. State of Karnataka2 .  

While considering the rights of an alienee under an alienation made between  

01.02.1963 and 07.08-1978 i.e. between the period of the appointed date and  

the date when the Amendment  Act came into force, the Full Bench in para  

30 (f) of its judgment observed as under:-

“There  is  no  provision  in  the  Act  authorizing  the  State  Government  or  its  authorities  to  evict  an  alienee  under  an  alienation made between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978.  Section 7 is  not  applicable,  as  such  an  alienee  is  not  an  ‘unauthorised  holder’.  If the land alienated between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978,  is subsequently re-granted to the alienor, the benefit of such re- grant, namely, title will enure to the benefit of the alienee.  If  the land is not re-granted to the alienor, but to someone else on  the  ground  that  the  alienor  is  not  a  ‘holder’  or  ‘authorised  holder’, then the alienee will be in the position of a transferee  from a person without any title; and the grantee to whom the  

2 1994 (1) KLJ 385

Page 6

6 re-grant is made, will be entitled to obtain possession from the  alienee and the limitation for such grantee to dispossesses the  alienee will commence from the date of re-grant.”

9. Agricultural  land bearing Survey No.83 of  Hoshalli  Village,  Kolar  

District,  Karnataka admeasuring 3 acres 39 guntas was Thalavari Inamthi  

land in  the  hands  of  original  Baruvardars  named Muni  Papanna and his  

father Narasappa. Said Muni Papanna and Narasappa sold this land under  

registered  sale  deed  dated  13.05.1971  in  favour  of  one  Nadumpalli  

Muneppa. Pursuant to the sale deed, the alienee was put in possession of the  

land.  The land in question was re-granted in favour of Muni Papanna on  

31.03.1982.  This was challenged in appeal and the matter stood remitted to  

the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, fresh re-grant proceedings  

were taken up and the land was re-granted in favour of said Muni  Papanna  

and two others.  The re-grant in favour of those two others was challenged  

by  Muni  Papanna  which  challenge  was  allowed  and  the  re-grant  was  

confirmed in favour of Muni Papanna alone.  Those proceedings attained  

finality and became conclusive.  

10. Original Suit No.19 of 2004 was filed by the present appellant, being  

the successor-in-  interest  of  Nadumpalli   Muneppa i.e.  the alienee in the  

Court of Civil Judge,  Junior Division Srinivaspuri, District Kolar. It was

Page 7

7 submitted that after the re-grant in favour of the original holder, by virtue of  

the judgments of the High Court of Karnataka as mentioned herein above,  

the plaintiff was entitled to the land in question. It was further submitted that  

the  defendants  namely  the  wife  and  the  children  of  Muni  Papanna  had  

however executed registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 5 and 6 and  

that they were seeking to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff. With these  

assertions, the plaintiff prayed for declaration that he be declared absolute  

owner of the land in question and also prayed for appropriate permanent  

injunction  restraining  the  defendants  from  interfering  with  his  peaceful  

possession.  

11. All  the  defendants  filed  common  written  statement.  It  was  not  

disputed that there was alienation in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff  

on 28.05.1971 but it was submitted that in proceedings initiated by Tehsildar  

under  Section  7  of  the Act,  an  order  of  eviction  was passed  against  the  

alienee and that the alienee was evicted from the land on 24.09.1981. It was  

thus submitted that on re-grant in favour of Muni Papanna, the benefit must  

accrue to the heirs of said Papanna alone and that the plaintiff had no right,  

title or interest in land in question.

Page 8

8 12. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 12.02.2007 accepted  

the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Relying on the decisions in  

Lakshmana Gowda  and  Syed Bhasheer Ahamed  it was observed that the  

alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 was not invalid and that the  

land having been re-granted in  favour  of  Muni  Papanna,  the  alienee can  

certainly claim the benefit by doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel in  

view of the re-grant  of  land in favour of  the alienor/holder of  the office  

under Section 5(1) or 6 of the Act and the subsequent sale deeds in favour of  

Defendant Nos.5 and 6 would therefore be of no legal consequence. The suit  

was decreed declaring the plaintiff to be absolute owner.  

13. The aforesaid decision of the Trial Court was challenged before the  

Principal District Judge Kolar in Regular Appeal No.163 of 2007. The lower  

Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed  

the appeal  by its  judgment  and order  dated 05.01.2008.  The respondents  

carried the matter further by filing Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 which  

came  to  be  allowed  by  judgment  and  order  dated  27.07.2010.  It  was  

observed by the High Court that the alienee having been evicted from the  

land  on  24.09.1981,  as  on  the  date  when  re-grant  was  ordered,  the  

possession was not that of the alienee and as such the courts below were not  

justified in relying upon the decisions of the High Court Lakshmana Gowda

Page 9

9 and  Syed Bhasheer  Ahamed  case.   The review petition preferred by the  

present appellant was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 1.06.2011.

14. We have heard Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Advocate for the  

appellant and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Advocate for the respondents and have  

gone through the record and considered the rival submissions. The law on  

the point as to the rights of an alienee of an Inam land where the alienation  

had  occurred  between  01.02.1963  and  07.08.1978  stands  settled  by  the  

decisions  in  Lakshmana  Gowda  (supra)  and  Syed  Bhasheer  Ahamed   

(supra).   

15. As laid-down in these cases, upon re-grant of the land in favour of the  

holder  of  a  Service-Inam,  the  re-grant  must  enure  to  the  benefit  of  the  

alienee,   if  such  alienation  was  between  01.02.1963  and  07.08.1978.  

Further, upon such re-grant, the title of a holder of the Service-inam land  

would relate back to the date of   coming into force of the Act.     In the   

circumstances, upon re-grant, the title of the predecessors of the respondents  

herein would relate back.  The alienation effected by them on 13.05.1971, by  

principles of “feeding the grant by estoppel” would enure to the benefit of  

the alienee who would get good title to such land after such re-grant. As  

observed  by  the  Full-Bench,  where  the  alienation  occurred  between

Page 10

10 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978  the alienee would not be “unauthorized holder”.  

In the circumstances, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate proceedings  

for  eviction  under  Section  7  of  the  Act  against  the  alienee,  namely,  the  

predecessor-in-interest  of  the  present  appellant.   Both  the  Courts  below  

were, therefore, right and justified in accepting the claim of the plaintiff-

appellant and the High Court was completely in error in setting aside the  

concurrent view and allowing the second appeal.

16. We, therefore, allow these appeals.  The judgment and orders  of the  

High Court under appeal are set aside and the judgment and decree passed  

by the Trial Court in OS No.19 of 2004 as affirmed by the Appellate Court  

in Regular Appeal No.163 of 2007  is restored.  No orders as to costs.  

      ……………………..J.

(V. Gopala Gowda)

………………………J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, February15, 2016