- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Guruputrappa Mallappa Harkuni v. Tahsildar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns Survey No. 187/2, measuring 13.21 acres in Anigaol village, formerly held as Patilki Inam land by Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil. The chronology is as follows:
- February 1, 1968 – The land was resumed by the State under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.
- February 6, 1968 – The holder applied for re-grant and paid the requisite charges.
- April 15, 1968 – The Assistant Commissioner ordered re-grant of occupancy rights.
- August 28, 1968 – Sanction to alienate the land was granted under the then Section 6(3) upon payment of fifteen times the land assessment.
- August 7, 1978 – Karnataka Act 13 of 1978 introduced an amended Section 5(3), prohibiting transfer of re-granted land for fifteen years from this date.
- December 4, 1982 – The appellant purchased five acres from the holder, relying on the 1968 sanction.
- June 23, 1984 – The Tahsildar rejected the appellant’s explanation and ordered eviction, holding the sale void under the amended statute.
- 1984-1985 – A writ petition and an intra-court appeal in the Karnataka High Court were dismissed, affirming the Tahsildar’s order.
- Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court, leading to the present civil appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a sanction to alienate granted in 1968 permits a valid transfer effected after August 7, 1978, despite the statutory bar introduced by the amended Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act.
- Consequently, whether the 1982 sale in favour of the appellant is null and void and liable to be set aside, justifying the order of eviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The sanction dated August 28, 1968 was complete, unconditional, and irrevocable; once granted, the land ceased to be governed by the Act’s transfer restrictions.
- The timing of the actual alienation is immaterial; the appellant acquired valid title on the strength of the prior permission.
State’s Arguments
- Although sanction existed, no transfer occurred before August 7, 1978; therefore, the amended Section 5(3) imposed an absolute 15-year embargo on alienation.
- The 1982 sale squarely violates the statutory prohibition and is void ab initio.
- The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981 1 Kant LJ 1), consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, conclusively settles the question against the appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1 | Transfers made after 7 Aug 1978 of re-granted land are void if within the 15-year statutory embargo of amended Section 5(3). | Relied upon as binding authority to declare the 1982 transfer void. |
| State of Karnataka v. G. Seenappa, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 648 (SLP dismissed 27 Feb 1992) | Supreme Court approval of the Lakshmana Gowda ratio. | Cited to show that the legal position laid down in Lakshmana Gowda already stands affirmed by the Court. |
| Rehman Khan v. State of Karnataka, C.A. Nos. 3104-13 of 1981 | Further affirmation of Lakshmana Gowda on identical issues. | Invoked to reinforce that no contrary precedent exists. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began by reproducing the text of amended Section 5(3), which categorically prohibits transfer of re-granted land “for a period of fifteen years from the date of commencement” of the 1978 Amendment Act. The Court reasoned as follows:
- The statutory language is explicit; it casts an absolute bar on alienations during the embargo period, save for partition among coparceners.
- Although the administrative sanction to transfer was granted in 1968, no vested right to transfer could crystallise because the alienation itself occurred only in 1982, well within the 15-year prohibited window (1978-1993).
- The decision in Lakshmana Gowda authoritatively interpreted Section 5 to apply prospectively from 7 Aug 1978, rendering subsequent transfers void. That interpretation has been twice endorsed by the Supreme Court in Seenappa and Rehman Khan.
- Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and intra-court appeal was legally correct. The Tahsildar’s eviction order stood on sound statutory footing.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed. No order as to costs.
Immediate Effect: The appellant’s purchase of five acres is declared void; possession may be resumed by the State free from encumbrances. Broader Implications: The judgment reinforces the binding nature of the 15-year transfer embargo under amended Section 5(3) and affirms existing precedent without creating new legal doctrine.
S. Mohan, J.— In all these appeals the common question of law which arises is the scope of Section 5(3), as amended, of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Hence the appeals are dealt with under a common judgment.
2. It is enough if we note the facts briefly in Civil Appeal No. 3231 of 1991. The land bearing survey No. 187/2 measuring an extent of 13.21 acres of Anigaol village was Patilki Inam Land. The land was resumed to the Government under Section 4 of the Act with effect from February 1, 1968. Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil of Anigol was the holder of these watan lands. He filed an application dated February 6, 1968 for re-grant of land. He also paid an amount equal to three times the assessment and health cess. The Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal Division directed the re-grant by an order dated April 15, 1968. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the Tahsildar of Sampagaon for information and necessary action.
3. Ninganagouda Ramanagouda Patil sought sanction to alienate land as provided under Section 6(3) of the Act as it stood then. He also deposited an amount equal to 15 times the assessment of land as required. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated August 28, 1968 granted the sanction.
4. In the year 1978, by Karnataka Act 13 of 1978, Section 5(3) of the Act was amended. The amended section prohibited the alienation of re-granted land for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1978.
5. On the strength of the permission dated August 28, 1968, N.R Patil, the holder, sold away the property in parcels to three persons. An extent of 5 acres came to be purchased by the appellant on December 4, 1982. The Tahsildar Bailhongal issued a notice to the appellant as to why action should not be taken against him for eviction since the land in question had been purchased in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The appellant explained that in view of the order granting sanction to the holder of the land the holder was entitled to alienate the same. Once such a permission was granted the land ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Act. In any event, the order of sanction mentioned that the land in question was transferable.
6. This explanation was rejected by the Tahsildar who, by his order dated June 23, 1984 held that the appellant was liable to be evicted. Accordingly, he ordered that possession of the land be taken over by the Government free from encumbrances, if any. Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court of Karnataka by way of W.P No. 11238 of 1984.
7. The learned Single Judge held that if the re-granted land had not been alienated with prior permission before August 7, 1978, it could not be alienated for a period of 15 years after August 7, 1978. That is the clear intention of the Amendment Act of 1978. On this line of reasoning he dismissed the writ petition. An appeal was preferred to the Division Bench in I.A No. 2700 of 1985 unsuccessfully. It is under these circumstances, special leave to appeal was preferred. Leave was granted by an order dated Sept. 22, 1991.
8. The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that by order dated August 28, 1968 the holder of Ex. Patilki watan lands was granted sanction to alienate the lands. Such sanction is complete in every respect. Merely because Section 5(3) of the Act came to be amended in 1978 that will not, in any manner, affect the sanction already granted. It matters very little when the alienation actually took place even within a prohibited period of 15 years from 1978.
9. The learned counsel for the State would submit that it is true by an order dated August 28, 1968 that sanction was granted to alienate the lands. However, if the alienation had not taken place on the strength of that sanction prior to August 7, 1978, the statutory prohibition contained under Section 5(3) will squarely apply. In other words, it could not be alienated for a period of 15 years after August 7, 1978. In this case, the alienation took place on December 4, 1982 long after the amended Section 5(3) had come into force. Therefore, such an alienation is null and void. As a matter of fact, the question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1 categorically ruled that such alienations are null and void. Several special leave petitions preferred by the State and parties assailing that judgment have been dismissed. The same is the position here.
10. On a careful consideration of the above submissions, we hold that the contention advanced on behalf of the State deserves to be accepted. Section 5(3) of the Amendment Act, 1978 reads as follows:
“5. (3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, re-granted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by partition among members of Hindu joint family for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978.”
11. Though the sanction to alienate was granted on August 28, 1968 yet the alienation took place on December 4, 1982. In the meanwhile, the above amendment, namely, Section 5(3) had come to be introduced by Karnataka Act 13 of 1978. There is a clear prohibition under the above provision that the re-granted land shall not be transferable for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Amendment Act 1978. The effect of which is, for a period of 15 years from August 7, 1978, the statutory bar against alienation would operate. In fact, in Lakshmana Gowda (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1 in paragraph 87 at page 18 it is stated thus:
“87. In the light of the above principles of statutory construction, we hold that sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Principal Act should be construed as being applicable only to transfers made subsequent to August 7, 1978 and not to transfers which had taken place prior to that date and that sub-section (3) occurring in that section should be construed as having reference to amended sub-section (3) and not to original sub-section (3) of that section.”
12. The High Court has laid down the correct legal position. This line of reasoning has been approved in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14627 of 1985 etc. in State of Karnataka v. G. Seenappa 1993 Supp (1) SCC 648 which were dismissed by an order of this Court on February 27, 1992. Again in Rehman Khan v. State of Karnataka C.A Nos. 3104-13 of 1981 this Court upheld the ruling of Lakshmana Gowda case (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1. Thus, we conclude that the High Court is right. No interference is called for.
13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Alert