# " MANCHEGOWDA ETC v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC. Apr.if 17, 1984

- **Citation:** [1984] 3 S.C.R. 502
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984
- **Bench:** P.N. BHAGWATf, Amarendra Nath Sen, Ranganath Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manchegowda-etc-v-state-of-karnataka-etc-apr-if-17-1984-8622
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Karnataka Sched•led Castes and Schedu(ed Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) 'Act, 1978, ·sections 4 & 5. constitutipnaJ validity-Whether
the jro_hibition of transfer of granted land5 and_ ResumpiOon or, restitution
thereof without p·aymeni Of compensttion or providinti any appeal for. such
order:iofresumption violates. Art. 19 (/) (/), 31and3/A of the Co,nstitution-
. Wheiher making such special provisions only with regard to. Scheduled Ciistes and '
Scheduled .Tribes to. the exclusion ~!persons belof!King to ~th_er communities,
violated Art~14-of the Constitution.
,The petitioners are purchasCrs of lands which, had been original1~
granted by the State to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes.
Such lands -had been originally granted to persons beiorlging,_
to Scheduled· Castes alld
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 (Prohibitiop of Transfer Of Ce£tain Lands A€t), 1978, notices have been
issued by the appropriate . authority tO the transferees of such lands to show
cause as to'\vhy the 'lands transferred' to them should not be resumed for
being restored to the original grantees br their legal heirs or for distributioD.
otherwise to
the me~bers ·of .Scheduled Castes- and Scheduled Tribes iri. ·
aecorditnce with the· provlsions of the Statute, as the transfers iO: their
·ravp_ur .are in view of the provisionS of .the Act now nu11 and void. The ·
appellants, who were aggrieved by th~ said notices challenged the vires of the
Act. According- to them, ss. 4 & S of -the Act violated lhe provisions of
Arts 14, 19 · (1) (f), 31 and 31A of the Constitution. The High Court for
reasons recorded in the Judgii1ent upheld the validity ot the Act ·and dis· .
•missed the, p'etitions. However,· the High Court granted certificates ,ui:ider
Arts. 132 & 133 of the Constitution and hence.the app_eals.
Dismissing the appe~ls, the Coui:t
·HELD:. I: I. Sections 4 .& S of the Karnataka Scheduled Castca
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfers of Certain }.ands) Act, 1978
is constituliona~Jy val_id~L510FJ
·
·
•
'
' .
,
~MANCHEoOWDA v. KARNATAKA
503
1 : 1. However, the prov1s1o~l of the Act must be read down and _
held that the Act will apply to
transfers of grapted lands made in breach of
the condition_ imposing prohibition ori tfansfer. 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 n9t Jost its defeasible
character at the d;i.te wjien ~he A:t c.1m~ into force. -Transferees Of granted
land having a p~rfected ~nd not~ void:J.ble title at the cOmmencement of the
Act must be held to be outside the pale cf the provisions 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 not voidable at the date of the commencem.:nt of the.Act. Granied lands which had b~en transferred after the expiry
of the period
_of
prohibition
~o not come within the purView
of
the Act·, an~ cannot be proceeded ag1inst under the provisions of this Act.
The' provisions o( the Act ·mak.! this position clear, as ~s .. 4· ~ 5 IJecome
applicable only when grante& lan\ls. are transferred in bt{'ach of ihe condition
relating to.prohibition of such lands. Granted lands transferred before the
cominence111ent of the Act and not iP contraventio-n of prohibition On_ trans-
. f~r are clearly beyo.qd the scope and p:.irview of the Present Act. Also in
case where gfanted lands had been. tran.sferred · be for_~ the commencement
of the Act in violat'fon of_ the condition regarding prohibition on such
trartsfer and the transferee who- had initially 3.oquired only a voidable'
·title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the grant'ed lands
bY prescription by long and continuous.enjoyment therofin accordance with
law Defore the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,538 of 57,984. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39538 for what follows._

A
B
D
E
F.
G
B
502
"
MANCHEGOWDA ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC.
Apr.if 17, 1984
(P.N. BHAGWATf, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J
Karnataka Sched•led Castes and Schedu(ed Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) 'Act, 1978, ·sections 4 & 5. constitutipnaJ validity-Whether
the jro_hibition of transfer of granted land5 and_ ResumpiOon or, restitution
thereof without p·aymeni Of compensttion or providinti any appeal for. such
order:iofresumption violates. Art. 19 (/) (/), 31and3/A of the Co,nstitution-
. Wheiher making such special provisions only with regard to. Scheduled Ciistes and '
Scheduled .Tribes to. the exclusion ~!persons belof!King to ~th_er communities,
violated Art~14-of the Constitution.
,The petitioners are purchasCrs of lands which, had been original1~
granted by the State to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes.
Such lands -had been originally granted to persons beiorlging,_
to Scheduled· Castes alld
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 (Prohibitiop of Transfer Of Ce£tain Lands A€t), 1978, notices have been
issued by the appropriate . authority tO the transferees of such lands to show
cause as to'\vhy the 'lands transferred' to them should not be resumed for
being restored to the original grantees br their legal heirs or for distributioD.
otherwise to
the me~bers ·of .Scheduled Castes- and Scheduled Tribes iri. ·
aecorditnce with the· provlsions of the Statute, as the transfers iO: their
·ravp_ur .are in view of the provisionS of .the Act now nu11 and void. The ·
appellants, who were aggrieved by th~ said notices challenged the vires of the
Act. According- to them, ss. 4 & S of -the Act violated lhe provisions of
Arts 14, 19 · (1) (f), 31 and 31A of the Constitution. The High Court for
reasons recorded in the Judgii1ent upheld the validity ot the Act ·and dis· .
•missed the, p'etitions. However,· the High Court granted certificates ,ui:ider
Arts. 132 & 133 of the Constitution and hence.the app_eals.
Dismissing the appe~ls, the Coui:t
·HELD:. I: I. Sections 4 .& S of the Karnataka Scheduled Castca
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfers of Certain }.ands) Act, 1978
is constituliona~Jy val_id~L510FJ
·
·
•
'
' .
,
~MANCHEoOWDA v. KARNATAKA
503
1 : 1. However, the prov1s1o~l of the Act must be read down and _
held that the Act will apply to
transfers of grapted lands made in breach of
the condition_ imposing prohibition ori tfansfer. 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 n9t Jost its defeasible
character at the d;i.te wjien ~he A:t c.1m~ into force. -Transferees Of granted
land having a p~rfected ~nd not~ void:J.ble title at the cOmmencement of the
Act must be held to be outside the pale cf the provisions 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 not voidable at the date of the commencem.:nt of the.Act. Granied lands which had b~en transferred after the expiry
of the period
_of
prohibition
~o not come within the purView
of
the Act·, an~ cannot be proceeded ag1inst under the provisions of this Act.
The' provisions o( the Act ·mak.! this position clear, as ~s .. 4· ~ 5 IJecome
applicable only when grante& lan\ls. are transferred in bt{'ach of ihe condition
relating to.prohibition of such lands. Granted lands transferred before the
cominence111ent of the Act and not iP contraventio-n of prohibition On_ trans-
. f~r are clearly beyo.qd the scope and p:.irview of the Present Act. Also in
case where gfanted lands had been. tran.sferred · be for_~ the commencement
of the Act in violat'fon of_ the condition regarding prohibition on such
trartsfer and the transferee who- had initially 3.oquired only a voidable'
·title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the grant'ed lands
bY prescription by long and continuous.enjoyment therofin accordance with
law Defore the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not
come wilhiii the purview of the present Act, as the title of such trinsferees to
the granted lands has beeri perfected before the commence:1nent oJ the ~ct.
Since at the tiate of the comm:encemen t of the Act the title of such transferees
bad ceasl!d to bs: voidable- by reason ~f 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 viJL.ue of the provisions of the Act
'Without violating the constitutional guarantee. [520D·H, 521A-CJ
·
1 : J. As the provisions of appeal has been incorporated by the
Amending Act which fecejveJ. the assent of the Governor ·on the 29th
February •. 1984 and first cam~ to -be published iit the Karnataka Gazette
Extraordinary on the 3rd day of March, 1984, the Deputy Comn1issioner to
whonl the appeal wiH be presented \vill n~ doubt take thfs fact into consideration iil deci"ding the question of Iin1it&tion in reg;ird to any appbal which ·
n1ay 'be ftled agains_t an order-of the Assistant CommisS'ion~r; if .any appeal
is pf'!ferred within a period of three months from the date the amended
pi:ovision conferriilg the right of appeal caJ!le into force, the Deputy cOmmissioner taking int~_consideration the fact that a period of three n1onths has
been prescribed for preferri'n~ an appeal from the ddte of the order of the
Assistant Commissioner, may have no_ difficulty "in entertaining the appeal by
condoning the deaJy· under s. 5 of the.Lfmitation Act in tefms of the power
conferred o~ the DepUty Comn1issioner under the -said s. SA, -proVide~ the
Deputy Co~missioncr is satisfied that the appeal is otherwise niaintainable
alld the interest of justice rCquires that the.appeal should be entertained and
not be thrown:out on the ground of limitatiob. [521-D-G]
;[
A
B
c
D
G
•.
•. ~ !
•
·-
.-.
. •
•. 'SM
SUPREME CO!JRT REPORTS
· [1981) 3 S.C.R.
A
1 : 4 It is no· dOubt true ·th.it before the .passing of the p;eseo. t A.Ct_.
L -·
· .any transf~r bf.granted l~nd in breiicli of ~he .cOlldition rClating·_to prohibitiOn
· On such.trausfer wollld not have the ·effeCt of fenderin8: the ti:ansfer void. aii..d
Would _make'anY.such trailsfer onlY-vJidable. But the· St<ite,.consistently with
B
. ·the ?irectiVe · principleS- of th~ _COnstitulio~, .. bas··~ade it a Polic:r arid Yery .
·· · · · . rightly,, to -preserve,_ protect and pfomote the interest of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedllled Tribe:i which by and lafge form the wea'.kei alld pOOr.er seciiori1 of __
the· people. in Ol;lC coufitry .. This may b~ said ·to. be the dcclared'pOtiCy or·
-the Siate au lithe p{Ov~sk:-ns seeking to nllliify such_· transfers is quite in keeping
With, the polic-y·_o(the State which may properly ·be regard~4 as·public policy for·
-rendering social and economic justice to these weaker· s~ctiOrls of the Socie.ty •
• -
• •
•
•• 1" •
.-·
• _. •
·,:_
•
•
~
•
•
•
" •
·-
••
.. ,,-:
. \ in pursuanc~ -of this· policy, thC: Jegis.lature ~js. undoub.tedly" compeiem. to.
'paSs. an .. enact.ment -providing that transf~rs Of such granted lands will 'be void .
. C ..... anc1"not merely voidable fof prop.!rlY safl!guarding'and protecting the iD.terests of.
- the Scb.edu.led ·Castes ~an..!· S·::ned.ili;:d Tribei3 for whose beilefit onl> these l<inds
.1'
rui.d b
1.:en,g"ranted. · EVen ullder the Contra:t Ac!, any Contract whieh is oPP'osed
D
E
.F
to public policy is rendered void. [512D·E, 513C·El."
·
·. 1 :· 5. ··Even· in t_he abs:nc"e of any s u~h· statil tory pr~viSions, the tranS~
fer of granted lands in .cJntraventiP1:1 of the terml of the g7ant cir in_brC:aCh of.
· nY-laW, cule or regulat_ion covering such grant will clearly_ be voidable.and the·
a sum\)tlciO ~f · sqch · gr~nted· lau.Js., aitl.'.:f.· _ .avoid1Dg .. the 11'.oidab_le transferS_in
.
:~cordance With law wiH b.;, p.:rmitt.::d., _Av..>idance of ··s~ch vo_idab~e t~ansJers_
· . •
d resumption of th.; gran~ed lands thr!>ugh· process of law is.bound to take
· ~- 3:
0 e
Ally. negiig~nc~- anJ delaY On the part o{tbe authoritiCs entitled to take
· ttID; ·n t~ avoi_d_ such transfers throUgh, apprOpriate lega_l process of law i>. bound
· aef:lO ke time.'-: Ant"nt!gligence and~ dCaly ·on th·e part of the authorities entitled
to t~ke action,.. to avoid' such
tr~ns~ers through app[Opriate legal" process .
~~r:resumption of su_ch grant maY .b.; further ill?-p~dipl:rltS._i~.th~ _matter of _
· ·"· g such· transfers and· resumption of possess1on ·of the granted lands •.
av01"m
·
·
·
·
b di
b ·
• d" ' I · h ·
PrOlonged \egal procee_d1ngs w1ll _und.Ju te !
e preJU 1c1a to. t e interests of.
the ""memb.:rS' _of ihe Sche!Jul,;·d _Castes and Schedule~ Tribes fur whose benefit_
the granted lands ar'.; intenJcJ to b: resum~. As
~ran~fer~ of granted Jands '
i~ _Contrave
0nt!o.n of. the. terrlls of th~. grant or any ~~w, ~egulation or ru~e
·
•1n,, such grants can b~ legal_ly
avo1ded~ap.d possession of sue~ ,lands c_an.
govern
""-
-
, t:·
-
•.
·
· "d'
-·~be recovered throug.h p~oc.:~s ·or law ~i~:!: -L_eg~slature. for the p~rp_o~.e of a~o1 t~g
,
delay and "harassment Of j'.!rotracte~ hugaUOn _ anQ in fUrthenng. l~S. object Of.
•·
- ·Speedy .·re.stQratiOi:t. o.f these sranted lands t~-
~he_· me1:1~crs of the ~ea~e~ . ·
.- comm Unities is p~r[~ctlY _: compe~en.t to ~ake ·suitable Ptov1sion !or resu~pucn
of· such granted lands Dy- stipulating in the enactment'_ that. t~aI?s~ers or such
G
lands in . cOr.it~_av~ntion · · _o.r _the ·~ern:.s _o_f ·th~. ~rant or ~ny regulauon_; rule or
---:<. Jaw regulating such grant wN._! be void. in. pro".1d1ng
~. ~u1tabl_e. pr~cedure_ con·~.
sistent with the principles of . __ natu~al_ JU~tlce f~r ac_h1e".1ng_ this _purpose w1th~ut
' ·. e io Prolonged.' litigation in Court ·ID •the larger interests or benefiung
~~:
0
;~:..bers of the Scheduled Casie~ and Schedulod Tribes. , [513£'-H; Sl4A·Pl
r.
. ,
2 .. 1. · .. Any pefson. who .acquires:sUch granted land by transfl.!r from the~:.:. J
H ·.. · ; · I gr.an tee in b·reach of.-the condition relating to prohibition on su~h ·
ong1na
·
- ·b· ·
·
d
.
[ r.
ust·n·c·essarily be presumed tO be aware Of the-proh1 ltlOn Impose
trans e m ·
"'
.
·
· ·
·
·
d
b
·
On the tranS.rer of such·, granted land,. an·d tb~y cannot be cons1dere to ea
,.
'
""' .

•
...
,•
I
\
I
i
..
MANCHEGOWDA v, KARNAfAI{A
sos
hon a fide ~a~cbaSer for valUe ;'and ev~-rY· such. tr~nsf~~ee. acquire~ tri -his k.llo...y· .
. 1Cdge only-a vo-idable title to the. grant~d- ti11d. _Th~ ~it le acquired by such tradsfet ·
. is defeasibie and is Iiable·t·o be defeated by an aPprop_riate action.taken iri this
regard. _-If the Legislatllre Und:r .suCh circ.ums"tances ·seek to inteivene ~n ·t~~
inter"ests Or these W.!akef sectioD..s ·Of. ~he-· Community anJ_ choose to substitute
a sPecdieS and. chiJptr methoi 'orr2cpveri __ of th:sc granted land!.· which were
.otherwise.- liable 'to .be resu411ed. through J:gal process~ it caO.no_t. be said that
any veSted_.right~~ of th~ tiaiisf!ree~ ire alfecfed. Transreiees· .or' granted lao~s
- with full knOwledgC of. the legal position that the· trans.fers made in their favour
in contravcUtion of- the _terins Qf grant or any, law.
rule_ or_ regulation·
go~rnirig such- gral)i:. are li~ble to be def~aied in Ia~. canrioi ·and do not h<l;ye·
in law or equity; a genuine or feat .grieVance that the"ir defeiisibte titt~ in·· su,ch .
gfallted lands· so -tranSferrCd iS, ill fact, bein3 defeated . and they • afe_ b::ing _\
. di$pOssessed ·_ Or ~uCh · 1ands Jrom -whiCh they
were·. in law -Hable-· ·to be
.. d.ispossessod by.process Of law, [S.14F-H, s.LSA·C].
..
.
. .
·, . ·.,
• 2 :· 2. ·. The position. will, ho--'·evir, be som~whit different where the . ·.
·A
.. c·
· ···. transferees' ha Ve acquirCd Such granted _lands not in violation of any term of the
.·. - ~int·or' any law regUlaOrig such grant as a.tsO where :any transferee who maY·
haye acqulrCd-a defeasible titlC in·sUchgranted. lands by the transf~r-ther~of in'
coi:itravention of the terfils "or the· grant_ or apy_ law regulating· stich grant --
. q)
_has perf:cted his litte by pr:s~~iptfo~ of time or i;:ithe[~ise. [~lSC-D] :. ··,
-....
.
.
-.
....
.-·.
-.. '
. '.
, · ..
· ··:·
·.-·
.
..
.2 o 3~ But where the1transferee acquires only a dcfeasible title liable to be
defeated in accord.in.cc with law,. avoida.nce o( such d,feasible- title Wh.ich still .
. remains liable to bt defe;ited in accorda°-'e with law_ at. the date of commence·
nient- of ·the, Act and recovery of thC posstssion of such granted 1and o·n the
· :E
·basis of the provisiOns Contained in'Ss. 4 & 5 of the Act- -cannoi be said to be.
·'
coriStitutionally inv.1.tid arid such a pr0Visi9n cannot be termed as Uncorisci9na- ..
ble_,.unjust aμd a_rbitiai:y. [.5150:.E],_
·
·
·
-, '·.·
.
3: C Gr~nted lands 'were .. intended. f~r the benefit ~nd enjoyment of
,_the ori_ginal &ran tees whO h1ppen' ~to '"betoO.g ~ t~ thC.;SchCduled oistes'an·d ·
Scheduled ·.Tribes .•. The. condition·.'. impo<ied .againSt ··the tiansfer fof a Parti-
'F .
cular period of such gradted land's· which : wefe: 'grallted essen.tialfy_ for the:
benefit Of the grantees c3nnot be-said to constitute ally unreasonable restric-. .
. . tion. The granted 'lands wer~ nOt _in the nature o~ proP~rties acquired 3.:0d ..
heid by the i;;r,antee~ ~n the Sense of a·cquisitio_n, or_ hOtding ~r P.roPei-t;r •within , ··.
the meaning .of Art •. 19 ~ ( lf (fJ of the -Constitution. ·.It was a· -case' of· a
'graoi by- t_he ow Der· of the. lafi~ -to the grantc·e for the possession "and enjoymetit
.. ;G
Of thC gfanted I.ands by the. &ran.tees and the Prohibition ·on·trcirisfer of Such· .
• granted lands for the specified period was an "essential term·. or c'ondition on
the basis of"which the grant was mJde.-. ·The prohibition ·on .trinSfer was not·
for an indefinite· per-i¢d . or perpetual.: It 'was·_onty for ·a pa_tticular per10d,-· the-:'" .'fi.
· obji:ct- being that the grantees shou_1d. enjoy the gtanted lands them'lelves at .
least for the period d~ring. which the. pr'ohibition_ was to remain operative.
Persons belonging to scheduled Castes an.d scheduled tribes:- to whom the landS -:. · _ -B
were granted were,_ because of their poverty, lack of educ3.tion arid general back·
wardness, exi,iloited }'i various persohS. W&O could and would take advantage Or·
.
.
.
. ..
'·
$06
SUPREME COURT REPORTS'
[19o4j 3 s.c;il..
.-
.A
hon~ fide the. said plight or those poor persons for depriving them of th:eir lands.
The Imposi:ion ·9f the condition of prohibition on transfer for a pafticular
period could not,.- therefore, be con.sidercd. _to constitute any- unreasonable
i:estrictiol'l on the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted lands. The
imposttion Of such a condition pnprohibition ·in the very nature of the graD.t Was
perfectly valid and legal. [575G-H, 5HiA-B, E-FJ
.B
.c
D '.
.E
F
G
·"
3 : 2. rhe. transferees of the gr~nted lands from the original· grantees,
acquir~d the lands improperly and illegally in Contravention of the condition
imposed o'n such transfers. Such transferees must have ·be.en aware and nlust
"'in any event be deemed to have been aware of the condition regarding the
·.prohibition 90 transfer and they cannot be C<?nsideied to . be bona fide trans•
ferees for value. s·Uch ·persons acquired in·the granted lands only avoidable
title which was liable to b-: defeated and possession of such lai:J.ds cOulQ: be.
resumed from.such tr~nsferees. Such a person who only acqu'ires a defeasible
legal right cannot make "a grievance of any violation o,f Art, .19 (1) (f) of the
cOnstitufion, when the defe""sibie legal right is, in fact, defeated by appropriate ,_
legal action·· or b}'t· any suita_ble provision enacted in an Act passed "by the
co.inpetent legislature. Further .in most· ·cases such transferees have afier the
transfer, Which -is liable ~o be avoided in accord_ance With law, elljoy~d for a.
sufficiently tong period the benefits cf .,lands transferred to them before the
lands could be recoveied from them Art.
1.9 (I) (f), therefore, did not invali· '
dates. 4 of the Act. [516G-H, 517A-BJ
3: 3. The right.or. property which a transferee acquires in the ~ted
Jantls, is _a d~feasibte·right and the-- transferee renders himself liable tp lose his
rigM or property at the instance of the granter. This kind of defeasible
right of the transferee in the g~a1l.ted lands cannot be considered io be ProPerty
as contemplated in art. 31
and 31A. The nature of the right of the tranfseree
in the gra1\ted 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 h\w governing·such grant~ and the object and the. scheme of
the pre~e:nts Act enacted for the benefit of the weaker _sectiorrs of our community, clearly go to .indicat~ that there is in this case no deprivation of slich
· right or proRerty as may attract the provisions of Art.;31 and 31A of the Con·
stitution. (517C-G)
With the enactment of the Act, the, voidabl~ rjght or title of the
transferee in the grant lands· l)eco·rnes void and the transferee is left with no
riglit or prop.erty in. th:: granted lands. The lands- which are sought to' be...~
recovered from t'hc- transferees of the granted lands are lands in.which the
transferees cease to, have any interest or- property. The effect of ttie:· provisions contained in ss. 4 & s·-of the Act iS that the di.::f~asible right or interest
·Of the transferees .in· the granted lands is defeated and the voidable tran-
~action is rendeied void. AS soon as such transferees are rendered void by
Virtue of the provisions of the Act transferee does not have any right in the
grauieci lands so transferred, and possesion is sought to be
recovei~d of
Sqch lands in which .the transferees have lo.st_· their ·right and interest. TherCfore, the question cf acqUistio.p_ of any property by the State or any modification_ or extiilguishmept of right of prope:rty does not realiy arise and Art. 3IA
carinot be applied. 'TheJefOre, there is no infringeme:nt of Aits~ 31.&.3JA
of the Constitution. [5180-H)
•
. }, '
'
,
•
. '
!
•
Mt-NCHBGOWDA V. KARNATAKA
501
4. The S)!:ial pr)visi·Jns m td! for the re;umption of granted lands
originally granted to t:" .m nb :rs of S:h,dJld Castes a~d Scheduled Tribes
and resoration -Of the same to the original grantees or their heifs and legal
.' representatives and' falling them to other m~mbers of these communities do
not' infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution. This Act has undoubtedly been
passed for the benefit of members of the Scheduled 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 aQ.d Sche4_uled Tribes can be considered to be separa"te and
distin<;:i classes particularly
in thi;:: ,matter or Pre·servation and protection of
their economic and educational interests. In view of the peculiilr 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 princrples as contaihed in Art.· 46 of the Constitution enjoins ,
that "the State shall proinote with sPecial care.and educational and econOmic
interests of the weaker sections of the people . and in partiCular of the
Scheduled C:rstes and Scheduled Trib!;s
ii\d shall protect them frqm social
jnjustici:: and all forms of exploitation." ·The object of this A_ct is 'to pfotect ·
and preserve the economic: intere·sts of persons belonging to ScP,edule Castes-and
Seheduled Tribes and to preve~_t their exploitation. For the purpqse 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 ita · the original
'>..
~ct. It may bo that such a provision wls not ofigina1ly made, as the
Legislature 'might have felt that providing for ai:i appeal -'Yould 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) (Amend1nent) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act Ill of
1984) now provides a suitable provision for appeal against an order of the
Assistant Commissioner under s. 5A. [519G·H, 5!0A]
·
C1viL A"PPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil 1ppeal Nos. 3U6
cand2608 of 1983 etc. etc.'
(From the ,Judgments and Orders dated 30th .September,
1982 & 5th October, 1981 of the Karnataka Hig,h Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 12680 and 12681/1979.etc. etc.
For the Appellants/Petitioners.
U.R. La/it 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
.:t.farasimhu/u, Vineet Kumar, S., Laxminarasu, Swaraj Kaushal,
Mukul Mudgal, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, R. Satish, C.K. Ratnaparkhi, S.K.
Mehta, SSJavali, S.N. Bhat, Naunit Lal, Kai/ash Vasdev, Ms.
i.clita Kohli, Manoj Swarup, Ashok Benadikar, AG Ratnaparkhi
For the Respondents :
R.P. Bhat, S.N, Kacker, L.N. Sinha~Swaraj Kaushal, Girish
<;hander a11d Miss A. Subhilshini. •
The Judgment of the C~urt was delivered by
.A
B
D
E
F
G
H
E
SUPREME COURT REP OR l'S .
[1984] 3 s.c.ll.
. .
AMARENORA NATH SEN, J. The question for 'considera.tiQn
_in Civi!'Appeal No. 3116 of 1983 by certificate grahted by tile
High Court is, whe"ther the Karnataka Sched11led Castes and
Seheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of b.revity)
is constitutionally valid or not.
The writ petition oμt of which this· appeal arises -. was filed
in the High Court along with a number of other writ petitions filed
·by various other parties challenging the validity . of th~ Act. The
High C~urt for reasqns recorded in the judgment
nph~fd. the
validity of the Act and dismissed this ·writ petition _and also the
other writ 'petitions: The High Court granted certificate ilnder
Arts.)32 and 133 of the C6nstitution an1 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 will also di~pose of all the appeals·
and special leave petitions.
.
·
In as _much as. the vires
~f the Act has been challenged
ess'entially on legal grounds, it docs not' become necessary for' •118
to set out the facts at any great length. The broad facts cominon
to: all wri_t petitions which were filed in the High Court may,
however, be
briefly noted. The· Petiiioners are purchasers .of
lands which bad 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 ot on '.the
• basis of rules or regulations governing such grafit. After the
passing of the .Act _in
question notices hav~ been issued b;,"the
appropriate authority to the _transferees of ·such lands to llhow
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 disiribution 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.th.e
provisions of the Act nqw null and void.
Before we proceed to deal with the various -contentions railed
0'n behalf of the· a:ppellant and the other petitioners in the other
writ pejjtions, .it would be appropriate to set 0ut the relevant
provisions of the A ct.
-
·
Granted land is defin~d in · S. ~(b) of the mean "any land
iiranted by the Government to a, person 'belonging to any of the
•
~-
•
'
MANCHEGOWDAy, KARNATAKA (A.N. Sen, J.)
509
Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land
A
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_: .
Jb
"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
,,roviding for such grant, or sub-section (21 shall. he. null
· and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall
he conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such
transfer.
(2) 'No person shall, after jbe commencement of this
Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land
without the previous permission' of the Government.
(3) The provisions of suh'section (I) and (2) ·shall
. apply also to the sale of any land in execution qf a decree
or order of a civil Court or any award or order. of any
other authority.
S. 5. Resumption or restitution of granted lan_ds . ..:...
(1) Where, on application by any interesed person or on
information given in writing by any per;on or su'o 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 ·(I) 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 to such grantee or legal heir, such land
shall be deemed, to have vested in the government free
fr<;>m all enum~rances, The Government may grant sue~
c
D
r
.A
•
B'
D·
:E
F ':
G'•.:
SIO
SUP!\EMB COURT REPORTS
(1984] 3 S;C.R.
.land io 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 (I) shall be
finai"and shall not be questioned in any court of law and
no injunction .shall be granted by any court in res{lect of
·any proce'eding taken or about to be taken by the Assis·
tant Commis.Sioner· in_ purswmce of any power conferr.ed
by or under this Act.
'
(3) For the purposes of this sectio11, where any gran·
ted land is in the possession ofa person, other than the
original grantee or bis .legal heir, it shall be presume<>,
until _ihe contrary is proved, that such person has acquired
the land by a transfer which is null and void under the
provisions of sub:section (!). of section 4.
Th~ valiility of the Act has been challenged mainly because
of the provisio11s contained in ss. 4 and 5 of the Act which purport
to declare transfers of 'granteq 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 orfginal grantee or his legal heirs and where it
is not reasonably practicable lo so re~tore the land to a person
belonging to the Schedule.ct Castes o"r Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to the grant bf such land. It may
be noted that the validity of the Act in so. far as it· imposes prohibition on transfer of granted land after the commencement of the
Act has not been challenged and the principal o~jection to the
validity of the Act is taken because of the provisions in th~ 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 :
L
Granted lands which had been transferred by the
gran~e 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
tran.sfer voidable and not void and it is not permissible to nullify such transfers and tq ~~clare the111-
~
void by any provisions of the Act;
•
~ ...
'
' '
•
.
•
MllNCHEGOWDA v. KA_RNATAKA (A.N. Sen, J.)
Sil
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. · Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act which empower the authority
to· take ·possession bf the granted lands without payment of any compensation · are violative of Art.
19(l)(f) of the Constitution.
_4.
"
Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act contravene Art. 31 and the.
second proviso of cl. (I) of Art. 3.IA of the Constitution· and are, therefore, void.
5.
Invalidation of tra)lsfers of land granted to persons
.belonging. to only scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes and resumption of only such granted lands
are discriminatory and they infringe Art. 14 of the
Constitution.
It may be qoted that these very grounds were urged before
the High Court. . The High Court hls 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 v_arious decisions w1!ich were
cited before it. The High Court for reasons stated in tlie 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 a!so been .mgefi;,before us and the said ground
is that as the ·Act m queshon does not provide for an appeal
against the order of th_e competent authority, the Act should be
held to. be unreasonable,. ·unjust and unconscionable and should,
therefore, be struck down .
. Before w~ proceed to examine the contentions .. iaisecl before
us, it will be appropriate to refer to the objects and reasons for
the passing of th'is p'articular ena1;tment. The objects and reason~
flUl as follows ;
A·
B
c
E
F
G
H.
..
·c
D
E
F.
..
.. " .. -~.
'··
--~------
512 -
.. ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. ' .:. [1:9S4j 3 S.C,R •. ·.·
"The non-alienatioO: cla~s·e contained in the exis.: • .:1
.. Land Grant Rules and the provisions for conc~IE:tion .;, .
' grants where the land fs .alienated in ccntravcnfa n of the
above ·said pr?vision: are found not su.flicient tc} help
. 'the 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes grantees. · ·
·whose. ignorance and poverty. _hav.e been expioite.d by··
persons. belon'ging_ to the afilucnt and powerful· section·s · · ·
to.obtain ·sales or mortgages either for· a. nominal consi-·
deration or for· no consideraiion ·at all and ·.they have ·
become the-victims of circumstances .. _ To.fulfill ·the pur- ·
pose of the grant, the land even i.f it ;iias' been alienated, .
should be-restored to the origin_al grantee. or his heirs.
-·· ..
.
. Th~ Government .of ·India bas·· al;o bee~ urgi~g the
State Governirlent .for enactipg _.alegislation to prevent
... alienation oflands granted to Scheduled Castes and Sche- .
·. duled
Tribe~ by .Government orithe_ lines ofthe'model.
· legislation ·prepared by· _it and cjrciilated to .the . State .·
GoverD.ment". ·
·
'· ·
- It is no doubt trl.le that before th~ passing of . the prese~t A~t ··.
. J"
'\ :
· ·any transfer of granted land iii brea~h of the co~ditfon relating to
_.
. prohibition on such transfe~ would not. have the "effect of rendering .·
the transfer 'void and would make any. such transfer only voidable. .
. ' r
. The present.Act seeks to introduce a change in the legal position ...
The prohibition oi;. transfer.of granted land h~d been imposed by · ·
law, rules or. regulations ' governing'. such grant or_ by -the terms ..
of the grant ... The relevant provisions · imposing such· P!ohibition
: by rules, 'reguldions and laws have been. referred to in the judgment ~f the High Court; 1( is quite clear that the ~cindition
, regarding proh}bition of transfer of· grantee! land had been intro-·
.. du_ced iri the interest of the grantees for the purposes of upkeep of
.-
-~
'
the grants a_nd for preventing the economically dominant sections of.
·_·.the coinniunity from depriving the grantees wlio belong to the w~ak.er . ·.
sections o(the people"oftheir enjoyment and po'ssessiori of these Ian_ds ·
and for sa(egua~ding their interests against any exploitation by the
richer 'sections in regard to .the . enjoyment. an~ .possession of these
. lands granted essentially ·for their . benefit, As· the Statement of
•
Objects ·and Reasons indicates, · this ._ rrohibition oi:i 'transfer of . · · .f..
. gianted ; iand has ·. noi . proved· to l:e a sufficiently strong . safe-.
. guard in t!ie matter of preserving grants in the hands of the grante~·
.. --_
.
-.
.
+-.-.•
•• _.
.
-.
,_
.·•·. , .• .,,,
·'
..
..
r
..
.\·
~ .
'
!
........ ,
I
'.
·"'
..
MA~;C'.IIEG.OWDA v. KARNATAKA (A.N: Sen: J.)
$13
.be!on;;ing b t!{e Scheduied Castes and.' Scheduled Tribes ; and .in ,
'!iolation of the prohibition on . t~ansfer of the granted land, irans~.
fers of such lands on a large scale · to the serious detriment of the
interests of these ·poorer sections of the people belonging to the .
Scheduled Castes and Sch~duled Tribes had taken pface. In view ·
ofthis unfortunate. experience the Legislaiure in its wisqom and .
-
in pursuance of its declared policy of· safeguarding, protecting and ·
.. improving the conditions of these w·eaker . sections of the commu-
. nity;tho'ught it fit to bring about this. change in the !egalposition ·
by providing that any such .. transfer. except in ierms of the provisions of the Act will be null . and ·void and not merely voidable •. ·.
Th~ Legislature no ·doubt is perfectly competent in pursuance of·
the aforesaid policy to provide· that such transactions will be nulr
and void and nofmer~ly voidable. :Even· undei the Contract Act
any contract which is opposed to' public policy. in rendered void.
The State,consistently with .the· directive princjples cf.the <;:onsti:
tution, has made it a policy. and. very rightly, to Neserve, protect
arid promote the interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled .
'.Tribes which by and large form the: weaker .and poorer sectio~s of
the people in our country. ·This may be said .to be the de~lared
policy of the State·.· and the. provision . seeking to nullify . such
transfers is ·quite in keeping with the policy ·of the State which may.
properly be regarded as public policy. for . rendering social and
economic justice to these weaker sections of the soCiety. ·
·
.
.
.. "-
.
.- .·'
.
. .
in pursu~rice of this policy, the· Legislature is undoubtedly . ·
competent to pass. an enactment providing thattransfers of such
granted lands will be void. and ·not merely voidable for properly
safegiiarding and protecting the foter~sis of the Scheduled Castes
··and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit only these lands had be~n
gtanted; ·,Even in the. absence of any such .statutory provisions, the·
·transfer cir granted lands in contravention of the terms of the· grant
. or in breach of any law, rule or regulation c·overing such grant will ..
·clearly be voidable and the resum.ption of such granted lands .after
. avoiding the voidable transfers in accordance with.' law . will be·
··permitted. Avoidance oC:such voidable transfers and resumption
· cf the• gr~nted lands. ih;o~gh process of_ law is boUnd to take·_tim~.
Any negligen.ce and delay on· the part of the authorities entitled to.
··take action to ·avoid such transfers through appropriate legal process
for resumption of such grant may be further ·impediments in the
111atter'of llVOiding such ttansfers and· rernrnption ofpossessfon of
. B
c
' .
E
.
F
•. G
·H·
B
c
D
E
'·
G
H
.- .
¥
;•· •
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
[1984] 3 S.C.R. ., ...
the granted lands. ·Prolonged iega\ proceedings wii1-u~doubtedly
I"
be prejudicial to the foterests ·of ,th·.; members or' the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe for whose.benefit the granfod .lands are.· .
. · intended to be resumed. As-transfers of granted lands in contra-
. :.
vention of the terms of the grant or any law, regulation :or rule
governing such grants car{ be legally avoided and possession of such .. • .
lands can be recovered through process oflaw, it must be hel_d tliat · · ·:r\
. the .Legislature i'or the purpose of avoiding delay. and hairassment .
of. protracted litigation and .in furthering its object of speedy
res·toration· of tliese granted lands to the members · of the weaker
..:ommunities is perfectly: ~cimpetent to.make .suitabl~ provision for
;
·resumption of su~h granted lands by.· stipulatiqg fo- the enactment
that transfers of such'. land$ i~ . contravention of .. the .terms of the
. grant or any regulation, rule or. law regulating such' grant will be
_·y
vo_id and· in. providing. a suitable. procedure consistent with the
principles of natural justice for achieving this purpose' without ·· ·
· ~
. recourse to prolonged litigation .iri Court in· the' larger interests of
benefiting tlie members ·of . the Scheduled Castes: and Scheduled
'Tdbes. '··
.·
... ' ...
. , . We iny note that the cowpetence',of the legislature to declare
any transfer of granted land in contravention of the terms. of grant '.·
of snch land ii~ any rule; regulation or law providing for sucbgra nt .
or without ihe previous permission of the _Government iii case I '·
of transfers after the pass.ing. of .the Act bas not been .seriously
disputed and cannot possibl.Y be disputed. .
. . .
·;. What h~s been str~ngly urged before us ii that'the.provisions
corttained in s. 4 in. so far as the 'same seek to nullify transfers
effected before the Act had coine into force, are invalid. ·
...
•,.
· ... -.
r
- . ~
. Any person who a~quires such grant~d lalld by ira~sfer fro~
. ·. ·"'
. 'the original grantee in breach of the condition ~elating to prohibi- :
ti on bn such transfer musi nec~~sarily be . presumed 'to be: aware of
. the prohibition imposed on the transfer of sucli granted land. Any-
.bcdy who acquires· such' granted . land ,in ; contra-verition . o(the
prohibition relating to transfer of such': granted land cannot be '
. considered to be a bona fide purchaser for . value: and·. every such.
,, ,
transferee acquires to his knowledge· "niy . a voidable title fo the
/'
. granted land;' . The title a~quired' by such tr~nsfer is defeasible. and .
. is liable to. be defeated by an appropriate. action taken in thfa
'regard; · If the Legislat~re >under'· ~uch
~ircullistarices ·seek· to ·
· intervene· in the interests of these weaker sections of the cc;>mmunity, · .•
}.
•
•
MANCHEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA (A.N. Sen J.)
515
·and choose to substitute a speedier and cheaper .method of recovery
of these granted' lands which were otherwise liable to be l'esmned
through leg_al process, it cannot, in our opinion, be said that any
vested rig.hts of the transferees .are affected. Transferees of.granted
.