¢ violated Artsi 4 of the Constitution.
MANCHEGOWDA ETC.
ve \ STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC.. April 17, 1984
[P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND ° “RANGANATH Misra, JJ.) .
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohitition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Sections 4 & 5, constitutional validity—Whether the prohibition of transfer of granted lands and Resumpition or, restitution thereof without payment of compensttion or providing any appeal Yor. such orders of resumption violates. Art. 19 (1) (f), 31 and 314. of the Constitution~ _ Whether making such special provisions only with regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the exclusion of persons belonging to other communities,
The petitioners are purchasers of lands which had been originally granted by the State to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled © .
Tribes. Such lands had been originally granted to persons belonging.
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled . Tribes under the provisons of
Law or on - the basis .of rules or regulations governing such grant. After the passing of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act), 1978, notices have been issued by the appropriate authority to the transferees of such lands to show cause as to4vhy the laads transferred to them should not be resumed for being réstored to the original grantees or their legal heirs or for distribution otherwise to the members ‘of Scheduled Castes. and Scheduled’ Tribes in
. aecordance with the: provisions of the Statute, as the transfers in their favour are in view of the provisions of the Act now null and void. The - appellants, who were aggrieved by the said notices challenged the vires of the
Act. According: to them, ss. 4 & 5 of the Act violated the provisions of | .
Arts 14, 19 “d) (f), 31 and 31A of the Constitution. The High Court for reasons recorded in the Judgment upheld the validity of the Act and dis- . ” missed the petitions. However, the High Court granted certificates under . Arts. 132 & 133 of the Constitution and hence the appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
‘HELD : : 1:1, Sections 4 & 5S of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes .
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfers of Certain Tands) Act, 1978
' jg constitutionally Valida{510F as ed
* MANCHEGOWDA vp. KARNATAKA 503
1:2, However, the provisions of the Act must be read down and , held that the Act willapply to transfers of granted lands made in breach of the condition imposing prohibition on transfer. of granted lands only in ‘those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act and had not lost its defeasible character at the date whea the Act cam: into force. -Transferees of granted land having a perfected and not a voidable title at the commencement of the Act must be held to be outside the pale cf the provisions of the Act. $:4 of the Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commencement of the. Act, Granted lands which had bzen transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come withia the purview of the Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act mak: this position clear, as ss. -4 & 5 become applicable only when granted lands. are transferred in breach of the condition relating to.prohibition of such iands. Granted lands transferred before the commencement of the Act and not in contravention of prohibition on_trans-
- fer are clearly beyond the scope and parview of the present Act. Also in case where granted lands had been, transferred: before the commencement of the Act in violation of the condition regarding prohibition on such transfer and the transferee who had initially acquired only a voidable‘ ‘title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the granted lands by prescription by long and continuous.enjoyment therof in accordance with jaw Before the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not
~ come within the purview of the present Act, as the title of such transferees to the granted lands has been perfected before the commencement of the Act, Since at the tate of the commencement of the Act the title of such transferees. had ceased to be voidable. by reason of acquisition of prescriptive rights on account of long and continued user for the requisite period, the title of such transferees could not be rendered void by viggue of the provisions of the Act ‘without violating the constitutional guarantee. [520D-H, 521A-C]
1:3. As the provisions of appéal has been incorporated by the
Amending Act which received the assent of the Governor on the 29th °
February, 1984 and first came to ‘be published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on the 3rd day of March, 1984, the Deputy Commissioner to’ whom the appeal wil be presented will no doubt take this fact into consideration ii deciding the question of limitation in regard to any appeal which may be filed against an order of the Assistant Commissioner ; if any appeal is preferred within a period of three months from the date the amended provision conferring the right of appeal came into force, the Deputy Commis-
"sioner taking into consideration the fact that a period of three: months has been prescribed for preferring an appeal from the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, may have no difficulty in entertaining the appeal by condoning the dealy: under s. 5 of the Limitation Act in terms of the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under the said s. 5A, provided the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the appeal is otherwise maintainable and the interest of justice requires that the.appeal should be entertained and not be thrown‘out on the ground of Simitation. [52t-D-G]
Cc oye ergot an Js -” SUPREME courT REPORTS , “(984g 3s C. Re
A OS 4: 4 tt ‘is Do" doubt true “that before the. ssin of iL “any transfer of granted land in breach of the condition ier wh ky on such traasfer would not haye the effect of rendering the transfer yoid and So would make’ any such transfer only yoidable. But the State, consistently with: the directive. ‘principles of thé Constitution, - bas ‘made ita Policy and yery : -pightly, to presérye, protect and promote thei interest of the Scheduled Castes .o “and Scheduled Tribes which by and large form the weaker and poorer sections of . : Be the people in our country. This may be said ‘to. be the declared policy of - AR ae ‘the State and the proyisicns seeking to nullify such ‘transfers. is quite in keepin mo ; with the policy ofthe State which may properly be regarded as ‘public ee o: “rendering social and econoinic justice to. these weaker sections of the Society. : * . c In pursuance ‘of this policy, the legislature‘ is. undoubtedly’ competes to. . a \ pass. an enactment providing that transfers of such granied lands will be yoid | “iGo. - and not merely yoidable for properly safeguarding’and protecting the interests of uv - the Schedule d: Castes sand Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit only these lands - - Y o-- had been granted. Eyen undér the Contract. Act, any Contract v whieh i is $ opposed oe oe. to public policy is rendered woid. [312D-E, SI3C-B] . ne os “5. “Byeén i in the abseace of any such statistory- provisions, the trans- Dp - _fer of "granted lands in contravention of the term3 of. the gtant cr in breach of... -D aay law, rule or regulation covering such grant will clearly - be yoidableand the ° ‘ ‘ resumption of: such ‘granted laads. after avoiding - the voidable transfers i in . af : agcordanss § with law will bz - permitted. ; Avoidance of: ‘such voidable transfers _ Co Ana resuaiption ofthe granted lands through: process of law is bound to take | | “time. Any negligence’ and delay on the part of the authorities entitled to take m os getion to avoid. such transfers through’ appropriate legal process of law is bound -. 7 "gp -* go take time. Any’ “negligence and: déaly on the part of the authorities entitled | ; yet 0 gg take a action to avoid’ such transfers. through appropriate legal process . mo "s for ‘resunt ption of such grant may bz further impediments, in the matter of” SP avoiding such transfers and: resumption of. possession of the ‘granted lands. ce Prolonged legal proceedings will undoubtedly be prejudicial to, the interests of mee the’ ‘members of tic Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit | le the granted, lands are intended to be resumed, As- transfers of gtanted Jands ~ 0 BO). in contravention of the terms of the. grant. or any law, regulation or tule - Wl governing such gradts can be legally avoided and Possession ofsuch Jandscan. > - be recovered through process ‘of law the Legislature . for the purpose of avoiding ‘delay and harassment of protracted litigation and in furthering its, object’ of ee “ speedy: restoration : of . these granted lands to’ the _members of the weaker’, Se ~~" gommunities is perfectly. competent to make ‘suitable provision for resumptien 7 ; ‘of: such granted lands by” stipulating - in the enactment . that transfers of such °. Go -Jands in. contravention of the ‘terms of. the grant or any regulation; rule or : “Jaw regulating guch grant will be void. in’ providing a suitable procedure con~ sistent with the principles of - “natural justice. for achieving this purpose without ~. recourse to prolonged’ litigation in Court inthe larger interests of benefiting the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. : (SI3F-H, S14A-D]
; 2, A,. Any person who acquires”: "such granted ‘land by transfer from the. i
Ho “origi ginal grantee in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on such rt a is transfet must ‘necessarily be presumed to be ‘aware of the-prohibition imposed | ; on the transfer of such . granted land, cand they casinot be considered to bea.
s hona fide purchaser for yale : ‘and every: such transferee acquires t to 5 his knows.
- ig dzfeasible and is liable to be defeated. by an appropriate action. taken i in this regard. ‘Agthe Legislature under, such circumstances “seek to intervene in the interests of these weaker sections of the: community and choose to substitute a spetdies and. cheaper method of recovery of these granted lands - which were’: otherwise . liable to be resumed through izgal process, it cannot be said that © “any vested. rights of the transférees are affecfed. Transferees of ‘granted lands.
with futl knowledge. of the legal position that the transfers made i in their fayour slancetecowDA y y. KARNATAKA wes St) (505:
ledge only‘a yoidable title to the granted land. The title acquired by such traisfer: .
in contravention of, the- terms of grant or any. law; _ tule. or regulation: . ’ governing such. grant. are “liable to be defeated in law, cannot “and do not haye in law or equity, a geauine or real ‘grieyance that their .defeasible title i in: “such ;
"granted lands so transferred is, in fact, being defeated - and they sare. being \ . dispossessed. : of such’ lands from which they — were ‘in law Viable, to. abe
7 Sispossessed by. process of law. (S44°-H, S1SA- Cl.
ta
2: 2." The position. ‘will, hosiever, be somewhat t diferent where the . - ae ‘, transferees have acquired such granted lands not in violation of any term of the . grant ‘of any law regulating such grant as also where vany transferee. who may:
haye acquired a defeasible title in’ suck granted lands by the transfer thereof i in:
“contravention of the terms ‘of the grant or any law regulating ’ such grant -
.- cular period of such grated lands which ; were: granted essentially . for the.» we has perfesie ed his ttle by prescription of time or otherwise. [515CDT wee
“2; 3. But where the transferee acquires 5 only a ‘dcfeasible i iitle liable to be .
“defeated i in accordance with law,. avoidance. of. such defeasible title which still -
. " remains liable to be defeated i in accordance with law at the date of commence- 7 we mest: of. ‘the. Act and recovery of the possession of such granted land onthe -.- ble, unjust a and arbitrary. §ISD- -E}
3: r “Granted lands * were “ititended’ for the benefit and enjoyment of ©
. the ‘original grantees : who happen - “to” belong “to the: ‘Scheduled Castes and”.
Scheduled . Tribes.- The condition. “imposed against “the transfer for a partie.
benefit of the grantees cannot be- said to constitute any unreasonable restric. -
~ tion! The granted ‘lands. were not in the nature of properties acquired and:
held by the grantees in the sense of acquisition, or holding or Property within . the meaning of Art. 19" (1) (fJ of the Constitution. -It was a ‘case’ of a
. gtant by the owner of the land to the grantee for the possession “and enjoyment of the granted lands by - the. Brantecs and the Prohibition | on transfer of such | “ granted lands for the specified period was an essential term or condition on. the basis of which the grant was made. ‘The prohibition on trdosfer was not.
. - for an indefinite’ period: or: ‘perpetual. ; It was only for 2 pafticular period, the :
ma wardness, exploited by various s Persons, who could and would take advantage of
‘object- being that the grantees should: enjoy the gtanted Jands themselves at- -Jeast for the period during which the prohibition. was to remajn operative.
Persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribesto whom the lands | were granted were, because of their poverty, lack of education and general back:
on basis of the provisions contained in ss. 4 & 5 of the Act -cannot be. said to be-.-° '. * constitutionally inya'lid and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionar. a!
s
.* we
506 . |. _, SUPREME COURT REPORTS’ - [195413 scr.
A bona fide the said plight of these poor persons for depriving them of their lands, The imposi:ion of the condition of prohibition on transfer for a particular period 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 onprohibition ‘in the very nature of the grant was . perfectly valid and legal. [575G-H, 51f6A-B, E- “F] ‘ ‘
B _ 3:2. The transferees of the granted lands from the original- grantees, wf “. aequired the lands improperly and illegally in contravention of the condition , imposed on such transfers. Such transferees ‘must have ‘been aware and must “in any event be deemed to have been aware of the condition regarding the prohibition on transfer and they cannot be considered to be bona fide transferees for value. Sich-persons acquired in-the granted lands only avoidable title which was liable to b2 defeated and possession of such lands could be - resumed from such transferees. Such a person who only acquires a defeasible ° legal right, cannot: make .a grievance of any violation of Art, 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, when the defeasible legal right is, in fact, defeated by appropriate © ” Jegal action. or bye any suitable provision enacted in an Act passed ‘by the ® competent legislature. Further in most cases such transferees have after the transfer, which -is liable to be avoided in accordance With law, enjoyed for a. sufficiently long period the benefits of ands transferred to them before the | D lands could be recovered from them Art. 19 (1) (f), therefore, did not invali« | : date s. 4 of the Act..[516G-H, SI7A-B]
3:3. The right or. property which a transferee acquires in ‘the granted - -Jands, is a defeasible-right and the transferee renders himself liable to lose his . ‘sight or property at the instance of the grantor. -This kind of defeasible . . right of the transferee in the granted lands ‘cannot be considered to be property ot E as contemplated in art. 31 and 31A. The nature of the right of the tranfseree ~ in the grattted lands on transfer ‘of such lands in breach of'the condition * prohibition relating to ‘such transfer, the object of such grant and the terms therefor, also the law governing ‘such grants and the object and the scheme of . the presents Act enacted for thé benefit of the weaker sections of our community, clearly go to indicate that there is in this case no deprivation of stich “right or property as may attract the provisions of Art«3l and 31A of the Constitution. [5!7C-G] oe .
With the enactment of the Act, the, voidable right or title of the. transferee in the grant lands becomes void and the transferee is left with no ‘Sy right or property. in, the granied lands, The lands. which are sought to be,,
* recovered from the. transferees of the granted lands are lands in ‘which the . transferees cease to,have any interest or property. The effect of the provi- e 7 G sions contained in ss. 4 & Sof the Act is that the defeasible right or interest - | ¥ ‘of the transferees in the granted lands is defeated and the voidable tran- | saction is rendered void. Assoon as such transferees are rendered void by virtue of the provisions of the Act transferee does not have any right in the - granied lands so transferred, and possesion is sought to be recovered of ; such lands in which the transferees have lost ‘their right and interest. There- ~ A ; fore, the question ef acquistion of any property by the State or any modifica- H tion or extinguishment of right of property does not really arise and Art. 31A 7 carinot be applied. “Therefore, there is no infringement of Arts. 31.&-31A
' of the Constitution. [518D-H]
- fae ped
MANCHEGOWDA V. KARNATAKA 507
4, The s>2sial provisions midz for the resumption of granted lands originally gcanted to ¢(h?.m2nbsrs of Stheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and resoration.of the same to the original grantees or their heirs and legal
. representatives and falling them to other members of these comimunities do not infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution. This Act has undoubtedly been passed forthe benefit of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
’ Tribes who are recognised as backward ° citizens and weaker sectionsin the country: Therecannot be any manner of doubt that persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be considered to be separate and | distinct classes particularly in the matter of preservation and protection of theic economic and educational interests. Io view of the peculiar plight of these two classes, the Constitution in?Art. 15 (4) makes specific mention of these two classes and in Art 16 (4) speaks of backward class of citizens. One of the directive principles as contained in Art. 46 of the Constitution enjoing - that ‘the State shall promote with special care.and educational and econdmic interests of the weaker sections of the. people and in particular of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.” -The object of this Act is to Protect”
and preserve the economic-interests of persons belonging to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to prevent their exploitation. For the purpose of the present Act, the classification has a clear nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
- [519 A-F]
5. It is true there was no provision for any appeal in’ the original
Act. It may be that such a provision was not originally made, as the .°
Legislature might have felt that providing for an appeal would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and might, defeat the purpose of ‘the act. However, ‘the Karnataka Scheduled “Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act LII of
: 4984) now provides a suitable provision for appeal against an order of the ; Assistant Commissioner under s. 5A. (519G-H, 520A}
: Civit APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3116 -and:2608 of 1983 etc. etc.
(From ‘the Judgments and Orders dated 30th .September, 1982 & Sth October, 1981 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 12680 and 12681/1979 etc, etc.
For the Appellants/Petitioners.
U.R. Lalit Shanti Bhushan, B.P. Singh, S.N. Kacker, S.L. Benadikar’ and M/s. PR Ramassesh, KR Nagaraja; B.P. Singh, M. ‘Veerappa, N. Nettar & K.N. Bhat,C.R. Soma Sekharan, TVS ‘Narasimhulu, Vineet Kumar, S. Laxminarasu, Swaraj Kaushal, Mukul Mudgal, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, R. Satish, C.K. Ratnaparkhi, S.K. ‘Mehta, SS Javali, S.N. Bhat, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev, Ms.
Lalita Kohli, Manoj Swarup, Ashok Benadikar, AG Ratnaparkhi
‘For the Respondents :
R.P. Bhat, S.N. Kacker, LN. Sinha, Swaraj Kaushal, Girish
Chander and Miss A. Subhashini, - The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S08. | SUPREME CoURT REPORTS" - L988 3 s.C.R.
" AMARENDRA NATH Sen, J. The question for ‘consideration ain Civil ‘Appeal No. 3116 of 1983 by certificate granted, by the
High Court. is, whether the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Seheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
"1978 (hereinafter referred to.as the Act for the sake of brevity)
is constitutionally valid or not.
The writ petition opt of which this appeal arises “was filed — . in the High Court along with a number of other writ petitions filed .
-by varlous other parties challenging the validity of the. Act. The
High Court for reasons recorded in the judgment upheld, the validity of the Act and dismissed this writ petition and also the © -other writ ‘petitions: The High Court granted certificate under Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution and this appeal has been _ filed with the certificate granted by the High Court. ‘As ‘the - . identical question is involved in all these appeals and special .
leave petitions, this judgment wil! also dispose of. all the appeals’
_ and special leave petitions.
‘In as much as. the vires Of the Act has been challenged essentially on legal grounds, it does not’ become necessary for ws to Set out the facts at any great length. The broad facts cominon to: all writ petitions whith were filed in the High Court may, however, be briefly noted. The Petitioners. are purchasers of
~ Jands which had been originally. granted «by the State to persons . ’ belonging to Scheduled Castes’ or Scheduled .Tribes. Such lands had been originally granted to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the: provisions of Law of on ‘the
- basis of rules or regulations governing such_ ‘graft. After the passing of the Act vin question notices have been issued bythe appropriate authority to the transferees of ‘such Jands to show cause as to why the lands transferred to then should not be - resumed for being restored to the original grantees ~ or their legal heirs or for distribution - otherwise to the members: of Scheduled
~ Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the provisions :of the Statute, as the transfers ‘in their favour are in view of ; the provisions of the Act now.null and void. —
Before we proceed to deal with the various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and the other petitioners in the. other writ peiitions, .it would be appropriate to set cut the relevant.
provisions of the Act. -
Granted land js defined in '§. 3(b) of the mean “any land granted by the Government to. a, person” ‘belonging to any 0 of the
§ be
.¥
/.
. .t pod
~ MANCHEGOWDA y. KARNATAKA (A.N, Sen, J.) 509
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land’
- allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceiling — or abolition of Inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “granted shall be construed: accordingly”.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act read as follows :
*S. 4. Prohibition of transfer of granted land— —(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 or 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 provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) ‘shall
_ apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil Court or any award or order of any other quthority.
S.5. Resumption or restitution of granted lands.—
(1) Where, on application by any interesed person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assis- tant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any:
granted land is pull 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 it 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 to such grantee or legal heir, such land . Shall be deemed to have vested in the government free
_* from all enumbrances. The Government may grant such
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.
Jand to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with therules relating . to grant of land.
(2) Any order passed ‘under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not’ be questioned in any court of law and no in juoction shall be granted by any court in respect of
“any proceeding taken or about to be taken-by the Assis- tant 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 yoid under the provisions of sub-section (1). of section 4..
The validity of the Act has been challenged mainly because .
of the provisions contained in ss. 4 and 5 of the Act which purport to declare transfers 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 null and void and confer powers on the authority to take possession of such land after evicting all'persons in possession thereof and to restore _ such lands to the original grantee or his legal heirs and where it is not reasonably practicable to so restore the land to a person belonging’ to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled. Tribes -in accordance with the rules relating to the grant of such land. If may be noted that the validity of the Act in so far as it imposes prohi-— bition on transfer of granted land after the commencement of the
Act has not been challenged and the principal objection to the
" validity of the Act is taken because of the provisions ‘in the Act seeking to nullify the tranfers of granted lands effected before the " commencement of the Act.
The main grounds on which the validity of the ‘Act has been
. challenged are :
1. Granted lands which had been transferred by the © : grantee in contravention of the prohibition -imposed on the transfer. of any granted land under the terms: of the grant, under the’ rules relating to such grant . or under any law governing such grant, renders the transfer voidable and not void and it is not permissible to nullify such transfers and to declare them - a yoid by any provisions of the Act;
dea | “ .
rot
. “MANCHEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA (4.N, Sen, J) ' SH
2, The power conferred on the authority to recover " possession of the granted land on the basis of the provisions contained in the Act defeating the vested rights of the purchasers who have acquired such lands bona fide for consideration and have been in enjoyment and possession thereof for years. is unconscionable unjust and invalid 3
3. ‘$s. 4 and 5 of the Act which. empower the authority _to-take possession of the granted lands without payment of any compensation - ‘are violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 4, Ss.4and 5 ofthe Act contravene Art. 31 and the second proviso of cl. (1) of Art. 31A of the Constitution: and are, therefore, void.
5. Invalidation of transfers of land granted to persons ' belonging. to only scheduled castes and scheduled
Se tribes and resumption of only such granted lands are discriminatory and they infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution.
It may be noted that these very grounds were urged before | the High Court. . The High Court has carefully considered all the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants who were the petitioners in the writ petitions filed before it. The High Court in its judgment has referred to the relevant rules governing the grant and has. also discussed the various decisions which were cited before it. The High Court for reasons stated in thie jugdment negatived all the-contentions and upheld the validity of the Act. We may mention that in addition to the aforesaid grounds a further ground has also been urgegbefore us and the said ground is that as the -Act in question does not provide for an appeal against the order of the competent authority, the Act should be held to, be unreasonable, un just and ‘unconscionable and should, therefore, be struck down.
Before we proceed to examine the contentions raised before us, it will be appropriate to refer to the objects and reasons for the passing of this particular, enactment, The objects and reasons run as follows ;
“ie ae regarding prohibition of transfer of granted land had been intro-- . te
BIDS __” SUPREME court REPORTS : : UE 3508
“The non-alienation clause contained in the exis.; hai _. . Land Grant Rules and the provisions for concellation na _ grants where the land fs alienated i in centravyentin of the © 1) above ‘said provision’ are found not. sufficient -to help
“e's “the - ‘Scheduled ‘Castes and. ‘Scheduled . Tribes. grantees “as ‘whose ‘ignorance. and poverty . have been : exploited by”
“'-"“" persons belonging to the affluent and powerful’ sections >. to, obtain ‘sales or mortgages either fora, nominal consi-" _. detation or ‘for’ no consideration - -at all and they have oy ' become the victims of circumstances. . _To ‘fulfill the pur-"
“. ™. pose of the grant, the land even if. it thas: been alienated, oo should be restored, to the original grantee 0 or his héirs.
Ss
State .Governitent’ for ' enactipg . a legislation to prevent © * alienation of lands granted to Scheduled Castes and Sche- © _. duled’ Tribes by Government on the lines of the model, ; ~ legislation prepared ay it and circulated to .the State: Government”. a eS sot eet i et
“any transfer of granted land in breach of the condition telating to .- ©: prohibition on such transfer would not. have the effect of rendering —— ~ the transfer ‘void and: would make any such transfer only voidable. ° . . The present. Act seeks to introduce a change in the legal position.
of the grant. . “The relevant provisions - imposing such prohibition . «by rules, tegulations and laws . have been © referred to in the judg- "ment of the High Court. It is. “quite clear that the condition
_. duced in the interest of thé grantees for the purposes of upkeep of : - the grants and for preventing the economically dominant séctions of. f “the community from depriving the grantees who belong to the weaker ,° - sections of the people” of their enjoyment and possession of these lands . and for safeguarding their interests: against any exploitation by the richer sections in regard to the . enjoyment -and possession of these ands granted essentially for their . beriefit. As the Statement of. Objects 2 and Reasons indicates, ‘this. _ Prohibition on ‘transfer of
_ granted i land has ° rot Proved. to te a sufficiently strong safe- ; - guard j in the matter of preserving grants in in the hands of the ‘grantee.
va oe ae ‘The ! Government. ‘of India has also been urging the 0
“tis no doubt true that ‘before the passing of the present Act ee
-The prohibition or, transfer of granted land ‘had been: imposed by. mo . law, rules or regulations ° governing ‘such grant or: by. the terms... * i MAX NCHEGOWD Ay. KARNATAKA an ‘Sen, J. y S130.
iu betons ging to the Scheduled Castes and, ‘ Scheduled Tribes ; “and i in , . « Yiolation of the prohibition on transfer _of the granted land, trans-. ‘fers of such lands on a large scale‘ to the serious detriment of the Ce c interests of these poorer sections of the people » belonging to the
~~ Scheduled Castes and. Schedaled Tribes had taken place. In view © _ Of this unfortunate experience the Legislature i in its wisdom and’
Y in pursuance of its declared policy of safeguarding, protecting and: 7°
__~ improving the conditions of these weaker «sections of the commu-. ~~ nity,’ thought it fit to bring about this. change i in the legal position - . by providing that’any such. transfer except in terms of the provi- .
sions of the Act will be. pull . and void and not merely voidable. ° ,
The Legistature no doubt is. perfectly competent in pursuance of oS tution, has made it a policy. and _very rightly, to preserve, protect ve arid promote the interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled . Tribes which by and large form the weaker - and poorer sections of .
** the people in’ our’ country. .This may be said to ‘be the declared ; " policy of ‘the State and. thé. provision seeking to nullify . such 0.
transfers i is quite in keeping with the policy ‘of the State which may:
oS _ properly be’ regarded as public policy for . rendering . ‘social and,
‘egongmic justice to these weaker sections of the society.
1 oe
“
_. the aforesaid policy to . provide that such transactions will be null :
’. and void and not ‘merely voidable. / Even: under: the Contract Act “.- any contract which is opposed to’ public policy. in.rendered void. oe, The State,consistently with the directive principles ef .the Consti-
In pursuance: of this. policy, the ‘Legislature i is undoubtedly volun. : -competent to pass an enactment providing that transfers of such © , _ granted Jands will be void and -not. merely: voidableé for properly.
safeguarding and protecting’ the interests of the Scheduled Castes ° - i and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit only. these lands had been : granted. ',Even in the absence of any such statutory provisions, the’ ‘ tratisfer of granted lands in contravention of the terms of the: grant - ‘ or in breach of any law, rule or regulation covering such grant-will ° . Clearly be voidable and the. resumption of such granted lands after “avoiding the voidable tiansfers in accordance: with law - “will be’ "* permitted. Avoidance of.such voidable transfers and. resumption of the’ granted lands, through process of law is bound to take time. Soll
_ Any negligence and delay on: the part of the: authorities entitled to. + take action to avoid such: transfers through appropriate legal process oo - for resumption’ of such grant may be further ‘impediments in the -.- matter’ of avoiding such transfers and: resumption of possession of -
Loy ee
14. Dat os SUPREME COURT REPORTS : “1984 3 SOR. 5 oA re the geanted lands. *Protonged legal. proceedings wii ‘undoubtedly re 7 -- be prejudicial to the interests of ,the. members of the’ Scheduled: ft ". Caste and Scheduled Tribe for whose ‘benefit the granted” lands’ are ane intended to be resumed. As transfers of granted lands: in. contra-. = vention of the terms of. the grant. or any. law, - regulation - ‘or rule. ae
. 7 BR " governing such. grants can be legally avoided and possession of such -“.> (6+
- lands can be recovered through process of law, it must be held that | -o » the. Legislature for the purpose of. avoiding delay. ‘and harrassment. *
. of | protracted litigation | ‘and in- furthering its’ object of - speedy _. + restoration of these granted lands to the members of the weaker -.. - _ 2 communities is perfectly: competent to make suitable provision for | _<q@’ . resumption of such granted lands ‘by stipulating ‘in’ the enactment | : t+ that transfers of such’ lands in ‘contravention of the ‘terms of the -. grant or any. ‘regulation, rule or, law regulating ‘such ° grant will be) void and in. providing - a suitable. procedure | consistent | withthe - principles - of ‘natural justice for- achieving . this pur pose’ without *" a “recourse to prolonged litigation i in Court in’ the’ larger interests of Oe D. | benefiting the members of. the Scheduled Castes . and Scheduled TT ‘Tribes. oa . A woe tit . ae Sy “ We my note that the competence of the Legislature to declare os . any. transfer of granted land in contravention of the terms. of: grant ney -,/.of such land or any tale; regulation or law providing for suchgta ot -- or without the’ previous Permission of the Government in case 1 fh, pa iy of transfers after the passing - ‘of the. Act has: not been Seriously ss Ts disputed and cannot possibly be disputed. .
. im What has been strongly urged before: ‘us is that the provisions . ee ’- “ contained in S. 4 in’-so far as the.: same seek ” to nullify transfers. a effected before t the Act had come into force, are invalid.
Any person who acquires ‘such granted land by transfer from. ont oi the original grantee:in breach of the condition relating to prohibi- » ~ tion on such transfer must necessarily be presumed “to be aware of. Le ‘the prohibition imposed on the transfer of such granted land. Any- ae vt |. bedy. who acquires’ such granted. land in’ ‘contra-vention ‘ofthe - . me prohibition ‘relating to ‘transfer : of . such’ granted. land. cannot. be |» “Dr considered to bea bona fide ‘purchaser for. value! and-.every such ne transferee acquires to his ‘knowledge only .a-.voidable “title to the. 4 | ~ ° granted land.- The title acquired’ by such transfer i is defeasible. and*. a HO .© is liable to. be’ ‘defeated by: an. appropriate” action taken in this - Je regard: If the | ‘Legislature - under ‘such ‘circumstances - ‘seek to intervene in the interests of these weaker sections of the community »
2 : 4
«
“
~~
MANCHEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA (AN. Sen J.) - 315
“and choose to substitute a speedier and cheaper method of recovery. _ of these granted: lands which were - otherwise liable to be resumed through legal process, it cannot, in our opinion, be said that any vested rights of the transferees are affected. Transferees of granted
. lands with full knowledge of the legal position that the trarisfers.
made in their favour ‘in contravention of the terms of grant or any law, rule or regulation .governing ‘such grant are. liable to be defeated in law, cannot and do not have in law or- equity, a genuine or real grievance that their defeasible title in such ~ granted lands so transferred is, in fact, being defeated and they are being dispossessed of such lands from which they were in law liable to be dispossessed by process of law. The- position will however;
-be somewhat different where the transferees have acquired such granted lands not in violation of any term of the grant or any law
"regulating such grant as also where any transferge who may have acquired a defeasible. title in such granted lands by thetransfer . thereof in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law regulating such grant has perfected his title by prescription of time or otherwise. We shall consider such cases later on. But where the transferee acquires only a defeasible title liable to be defeated in accordance with law, avoidance of such defeasible title which still’ remains liable to be defeated in accordance. with law
~ at the date of commencement ofthe Act and recovery of possession - - of.such granted land on the basis of the provisions contained in s. 4and's. 5 of the Act.caninot be said to be constitutionally invalid’ and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionable, unjust
‘and arbitrary. The first two contention raised on behalf of the - petitioners are, therefore, over-ruled. :
The next contention that Ss. 4and 5 of the Act empowering the authority to take possession. of the granted lands without payment of any coipensation are violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the
Constitution is without. any merit. Art, 19(1)(f) which was in force
‘at thé relevant time provided that all citizens shall have the right -
“to acquire, hold. and dispose of property.” *.
Granted lands were intended for the benefit and enjoyment of the original grantees who happen to belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. At the time of the grant, a condition
~ had been imposed. for protecting the interests of the original grantees in the granted lands by restricting the transfer of the same.
The condition regarding the prohibition on transfer of such granted
. lands for a,specified period, was imposed by virtue of the ‘specific
‘ 516 es a "SUPREME court REPORTS - 984) 3 3 SCR.
A.: term in the grant. itself or by reason of any’ law, rule or: regulation ae
| -- governing such. grant. ‘It was ‘undoubtedly open to the grantor at’. .” the time of granting lands to. the original . grantees to stipulate sich ~ - <* a condition thecondition being a term: of the grant itself, andthe: ~ ‘condition was imposed in-the interests. of the grantee. Except on. -
. the basis of such a condition the. grantor. might not have made any — such grant at all, -The condition imposed. against the: ‘transfer fora. ane particular “petiod. of. such - granted ' lands which were granted ae
"essentially. for the benefit: of the “grantees © cannot’ ‘be said ‘te -constitute -any: unréasonable festriction. “The granted lands. were
_ not in the nature of properties acquired and held by the grantees in =:
“Cc _ the sense of acquisition, or holding of property within the meaning a ' of Art. 19{1)(f) of the Constitution. It was a case.of a grant by the
- owner of the land to the grantee for the. possession and enjoyment ~
_of the granted lands by the grantees and the ‘prohibition on transfer ae ; of such granted lands for the specified. period was.an essential term.~ . - os “. oF condition on the basis of. which the grant was made. It has to ne
D-- be pointed out that the prohibition on transfer was. not for ‘an '. . *indefinite period or perpetual. It was only. for a particular period, .
“>. the object being that the grantees ‘should enjoy the granted lands -*”
"_ themselyes at least: for the period during which the, prohibition was:
to remain operative. . ‘Experience had shown that persons ‘belonging Fs
= to scheduled castes and. scheduled ‘tribes to whom the lands were.
"granted were, ‘because of their poverty, lack. of. education - ‘and -
Pee general backwardness, exploited by. various persons ‘who could and ....-.
‘+ would take advantage : of the sad plight‘ Of: ‘these poor ‘persons for.
'. depriving them of their lands. The imposition of the condition of. ae prohibition on transfer for a particular period could.not;. therefore, + _F . be considered’ to’ constitute any unreasonable restriction on ‘the.
~.-right of the granteés to ‘dispose of the granted | lands. The imposition «
_ .- Of such‘a condition on prohibition in _the- very - nature of the grant aon ms perfectly valid and legal, fo
‘The transferees of the granted © ‘ands “from: “the original a ars grantees, acquired the ‘lands improperly and illegally in. contta-. G , vention . of . the condition imposed ~ on such transfers. Such ~ ..,
'. transferees must have been aware and must in any event be deemed. - —_ to have been aware of the’ condition regarding the prohibition on :- _ transfer and they cannot be considered to be bona fide transferees - ~ . ‘for value. Such. persons acquired in the granted> lands only a ' Bo! voidable. title which was liable to be.defeated. and possession of — such. lands could be resumed from such transferees. Such a person ae ‘Who only acquires a defeasible legal right cannot make: a grievance lan i
MANCHEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA (A.N. Sen, JJ 517 of any violation “of Art. 19(I)(f) of the Constitution, when the defeasible ‘legal right is, in fact, defeated by appropriate legal action or by any. suitable -provision enacted in an Act
- passed by the competent legislature. It’ may further be noted “that in most. cases such transferees have after the transfer, which is liable to be avoided’ in accordanee with law, enjoyed for a sufficiently long period the benefits of lands transferred to them before the lands could be recovered from’ them. Art. 19(1)(f); therefore, did not invalidate S. 4 of thle Act.
We have earlier noticed that the title which is acquired by by a transferee in the granted lands, transferred in contravention of the prohibition against the transfer of the granted. lands, is a voidable title which in law is liable to be defeated through appro- | priate action and possession of such granted lands transferred in breach of the condition of prohibition could be recovered by the grantor. The right or. property which a transferee acquires in the | granted lands, is a defeasible right and the .transferee renders. ,
“himself fiable to lose his right or property ‘at the: instance of the grantor, We have further observed that by -the enactment of this Act and particularly s.4 and 8. 5 thereof the Legislature is seeking to defeat the defeasible right of the transferee in such lands without the process of. a prolonged legal action with a view to
‘ speedy resumption.of such granted lands for. distribution thereof _the’ original grantee or their legal. representatives and in their absence to other members of the Scheduled-Castes and Scheduled Tribes Communities. In our opinion, this ‘kind of defeasible right of the transferee in the granted lands cannot be considered
- to be property as contemplated in Art. 31 and 31-A. The nature of the right of the transféree in -the granted land on transfer of
‘such Jands in breach of the. condition of prohibition relating to - suchi transfer, the. object of such grant and the terms thereof, also the. law governing such grants and the objeet and the seheme of the present.Act. enacted for the benefit of weaker sections . of our community, clearly -go to indicate that there is in this case no deprivation of. such right or property as may attract. the provisions of Arts. 31 and 31-A of the Constitution.
In the case of Amar Singh y. Custodian, Evacueé Property,
Punjab, this Court while considering the provisions of Administra- tion of Evyacuee Property Act 1930 (XXXI of 1950) and the nature of right in the Property allotted to a quasi-permanent
—.
) (95) S.C.8, sl 0ti‘ e | a
Pe
“518 ce SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.
allottee held that the interests of a quasi-permanent allottee did not * constitute “property within ‘the meaning of Art. 19(1)(f), 31(1). and
312) of the Constitution. This Court observed at p. 834:
“Learned counsel ‘for the Petitioners has strenuosly urged that under the quasi-parmanent allotment scheme , . the allottee is entitled to a right to possession within’ the limits’ of the relevant notification and that such right to possession is itself ‘ property’. That may be so in.a_ sense. But it does not affect the question whether it is property so as to attract the protection of fundamental rights ‘under the Constitution. If the totality of the ‘bundle of rights of the quasi-permanent allottee in the. evacuee land constituting-an interest in such land, is not property | entitled to ‘protection of . fundamental rights, mere - possession of the land by virtue of ‘such interest is not on. - any higher footing”. Dos
With the enactment of the Act, voidable tight or the title of the transferee in the granted lands becomes void and. the © transferee is left with fo ‘right or property: in the granted lands.
The lands which are sought to be recovered from the transferees . . of the granted lands are lands in which the transferees cease to _ have any interest or property. The effect of. the provisions con- ‘tained in Ss. 4.and 5 of the Act is that the defeasible. right or interest of the transferees in the granted lands is defeated and’ ‘the’
voidable transaction is rendered void. We have earliar held that
“it is clearly open open to the Legislature to declare void the .
transfers ‘of granted lands in. contravention: of the condition of prohibition: on’ traasfer. As soon’ as such transfers are rendéred void by. virtue ‘of the provisions of . the Act, . the ° ‘transferee does not have any right. in the granted lands so tansferred, and possession is sou ht to. be recovered of, such: lands’ which the transferees have lost their right and interest, Therefore, the question of acquisition of: any property by the State or any
* modification or extinguishment of right of property does not really arise and Act. 31-A cannot be applied. We are, therefore,
- of the opinion that there is: no ‘infringement of. Art: 31 and Art. - 31-A of the Constitution. We may further observe that this aspect has been carefully and: elaborately considered by the learned Judges of the High Court while holding that. Arts. 31 and
31-A are not violated.
_ MANCHEGOWDA Y. KARNATAKA (AN, Sen, J.) : 519
The next contention urged is that Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act, are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as these sections make special provisions only with regard to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes to the exclusion of - persons belonging to ‘other. -
Communities. This Act has undoubtedly been passed for the benefit of membersof the Scheduléd Castes and Scheduled Tribes who . are recognised as backward citizens and weaker. sections in the country.’
There cannot be any. manner of doubt that persons belonging to ‘Scheduled Castes and Scheduled ‘tribes can be considered to be separate, and distinct classes particularly in the matter of. presetvation and protection of their economic and educational interests.
"In view of the peculiar plight of these two classes, the Constitution . in Art. -15(4) makes specific mention of these two classes and in Art. . 16(4) speaks of backward class of citizens.. One: of ‘the directive.
principles as contained in Art. 46 of the Constitution enjoins’ that .. |
“the State shall promote. with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.”
_ The object of this Act is to protect and preserve the economic interests of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled _- Tribes arid to prevent their exploitation. For’ thé purpose of the - present ‘Act, the classification has clear nexus to the object sought to’ be achieved. We are, therefore, of the opinicn, that special provisions made for the resumption of granted lands, originally ‘granted to the members of. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and resoration of the same to the original ; grantees or their heirs and legal representatives and failing them to-other members of these ‘communities do not infringe Art. 14 of .
the Constitution.
The last contention raised is that the Act should be consider- “ed to be unjust and unereasgnable as no provision has been made for any appeal against the ordcr of the authority concerned. It is true that there was no provision for any appeal in the original, Act.” It may be that such a provision was not originally made, as the
. Legislature might have felt that providings for an appeal would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and might defeat the purpose ofthe Act. In course. of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the
‘State had however submitted that in the interest of justice a pro- - vision regarding appeal would be incorporated if the Act by an’ p propriate amendment .of the Act: ‘It has subsequently been
* “ >
5209 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS : [1984] 3 s.c.r.
brought to our notice that by the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) ‘(Amendment) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act 3 of 1984) which received the assent of the Governor on the 29th day of February, 1984 and “ came to be published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraodina Ty on . the 3rd of March, 1984, a suitable provision for appeal agaitist an order of the Assistant Commissioner has been made in S. 5A _ which has been incorporated by the Amending Act. We have had some “doubt whether lack of provision for an appeal in an enactment of this kind would have infected the ‘Act with the vice of procedural unreasonableness and would have.affected the Constitu- ‘tional validity of the Act.- As, however, a suitable provision for an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been _ made by the Amending Act, this question does not survive to ’ require any further consideration-and it dées not become: necessary for us.to make any final pronouncement on it, 7 Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come within the purview of the’ Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act make this position clear, as ss. 4 and 5 become applicable . only when granted Jands are transferred in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. Granted lands transferréd befote the commencement of the Act and not in contravention ‘of prohibition on transfer:are clearly beyond the scope and purview of the present Act. .Also in case. where granted jands had been transferred before the commencement of the Act in violation of the condition regarding prohibition on such transfer
_and the transferee who had initially acquired only a voidable title - in-such granted lands had perfected his title in the . granted lands. by prescription by long and continuous enjoyment thereof in accordance with law before the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not come within the purview of the present Act, as the title of, such transferees to the granted laods has. been perfected before the commencement of the Act. Since at ‘the date of ‘the commencement of the Act the title of-such transferees had ‘ceased to: be voidable by reason of acquisition of prescriptive tights on account of long and continued user for the ach
‘MANCHEGOWDA y, KARNATAKA (A. N. Sen, J.) 521 requisite period, the title of such transferees could not be rendered void by virtue of the provisions of the Act Without violating the constitutional guarantee. We’ must, therefore, read down the .
. provisions of the Act by holding that the Act will apply to ‘transfers
~ of granted lands made in breach of the condition imposing prohibi-
: tion on transfer of granted lands only in those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable‘at the date of the commencement of the Act and had not lost its defeasible character
‘at the date when the Act came into force. Transferees of granted lands having a perfected and not a voidable title at the commence- " ment of the Act must be held to be outside the pale of the “provi- sions of the Act. S.4 of the Act must be so construed. as not to -have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which .__ Was ot voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act.
We may further observe that as the provision of appeal has been incorporated by the Amending Act which received the assent of the Governor on the 29th day. of February, 1984 and first-came
' to be published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on the - 3rd day of March, 1984, the Deputy Commissioner to whom the - appeal will be presented will no doubt take this fact into consi- deration in deciding the question of limitation in regard to any appeal which may be filed against an order of the Assistant Commis. sioner; if any appeal is preferred within a period of three’ months © from the date the amended provision conferring the right of appeal y came into.force, the Deputy Commissioner taking into considera: - tion the fact that a period of three months has been prescribed for preferring an appeal from the date of the. order’ of the Assistant Commissioner, may have no difficulty in entertaining the appeal: by condoning the delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act in terms of the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under the said Section 5A, provided the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied © that the appeal is otherwise maintainable and the interest. of —
¥ justice requires that the appeal should be entertained and not be , ° thrown out on the ground of limitation.
With these observations we dismiss the appeals and the Special . ‘Leave Petitions with no ordér as to costs.
_ SR. Appéals & Petitions dismissed.