JUDGMENT
N.K Sodhi, C.J (Oral):—
The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is whether the alienation of ‘granted land’ made by the 3rd respondent in favour of the appellant after the coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) without obtaining the permission of the State Government is valid? The question involved is purely legal and therefore the facts in so far as they are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are being noticed.
2. Respondent No. 3 is a member of a scheduled caste and he was granted land sometime in the year 1972-1973 and a grant certificate had been issued to him on 26.09.1975 Since the grant was made under the Land Grant Rules meant to benefit the scheduled castes in the State, a condition was imposed that the said land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant of certificate. The prohibited period of 15 years expired on 25.09.1990 and by that time the Act had come into force. The 3rd respondent alienated the land in favour of the appellant on 03.12.1990 and it is this alienation which was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the same was null and void being in contravention of the mandatory, provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The order canceling the grant was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order of cancellation the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 32569 of 2000 in this Court and the matter was considered by a learned single Judge who came to the conclusion that the alienation being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act was null and void and therefore it did not convey any right, title or interest to the appellant. It is against this order that the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties Section 4 of the Act reads as under:
“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 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-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 any award or order of any other authority.”
4. The language of the aforesaid provision is very clear. A perusal of sub-section (1) makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the granted land if transferred or alienated in contravention of the terms of the grant or in contravention of the law providing for such a grant and or in contravention of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act shall be null and void. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that no person shall after the commencement of the Act transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. It is not in dispute before us that the land granted to respondent No. 3 is a ‘granted land’ within the meaning of the Act and that the Act came into force with effect from 01.01.1979 It is common ground between the parties that before alienating the land the 3rd respondent did not obtain any permission from the State Government. It is thus clear that eventhough the 3rd respondent alienated the land after the expiry of the prohibited period the alienation nevertheless is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act inasmuch as no previous permission of the State Government had been obtained. We are therefore of the view that the alienation being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 was null and void and that it did not convey any right, title or interest in favour of the appellant. The view that we have taken finds support from the observations made in paragraph 6 of the judgment by Apex Court in Siddegowda v. Assistant Commissioner . 2003 AIR SCW 1693..
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant however placed strong reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Machegowda v. State of Karnataka . 1984 3 SCC 301 wherein their Lordships have observed as under:
“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 the Act. The provisions of the Act make this position clear as Ss. 4 and 5 become applicable only when granted lands are transferred in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. Granted lands transferred before the commencement of the Act and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly beyond the scope and purview of the present Act.”
6. A reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manchegowda's case (supra) would make it clear that their Lordships while upholding the validity of the Act observed that granted lands transferred before the commencement of the Act and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly beyond the scope of the Act. In the case before us the ‘granted land’ was transferred after the commencement of the Act and therefore the observations made in paragraph 24 which have been reproduced above do not in any way lend support to the case of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant then placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Subramanya T.S v. State Of Karnataka & Others . W.A No. 255/1997 dd. 24.9.1998 in support of his contention. This judgment again in our view is different on facts and does not advance the case of the appellant. In T.S Subramanys's case (supra) the alienation took place on 25th August 1969 i.e, much before the coming into force of the Act. In the case before us the alienation admittedly took place after the Act had come into force and without obtaining the prior permission of the State Government.
7. No other point has been raised.
8. In the result, we find no fault with the reasoning of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal with no order as to costs.
9. There is a delay of 1 day in filing the appeal and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay.
10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. I.A No. 2/2004 stands allowed.