# N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 2 S.C.R. 973
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. I 35 l1352 of2016
- **Bench:** V. Gopala Gowda, Uday Umesh Lalit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-venkateshappa-v-munemma-ors-31091
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 - ss. 2(a), 4(3), 5, 6, 7 -
Re-grant of Inam land in favour ofalienor - Right of an alienee -
On facts, agricultural land was Thalavari Inamthi land in the hands
of original owners - Alienation of Inam 1and by sale deed dated
13.05.1971, in favour of N-alienee and he was put in possession of
the land - Re-grant of land in favour of alienorlholder of office on
31.03.1982 in terms of the Act - Re-grant proceedings attained
finality - Eviction of alienee from the land - Right of alienee upon
re-grant of land in favour of alienor - Held: Upon re-grant of the
land in favour of the holder of a Inam land, re-grant must enure to
the benefit of the alieitee, if such alienation was between OJ.02J963
and 07.08.1978 i.e. between the period of appointed date and the
date when the _;Jmendment Act came into force - Upon such-regrant, the title of a holder of the fnam land would relate back to the
date. of coming into force of the Act - Alienation effected by them,
by principles of 'feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the
benefit of the alienee who would get good title to such land after
such re-grant - Alienee would not be "unauthorized holder".
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As laid-down in *Laks'1ma11a Gowda and **Syed
Bhasheer A flamed, upon re-grant of the laud in favour of the holder
of a Service-loam, the re-grant must enure to the benefit of the
alienee, if such alienatio'n was between 01.02.1963 and
07.08.1978. Further, upo'! such re-grant, the title of a holder of
the Service_-inam land would relate back. to the .date of coming
. into force of the Act. In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the
title of the predecessors of the respondents would relate back.
The alienation effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of
"feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the
alienee who would get good iitle to such land after such re-grant.
973
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A Where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and
07.08.1978 the alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". In
the circumstances, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate
proceedings for eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village
Offices Act, 1961 against the alienee, namely, the predecessorB
c
D
in-interest of the appellant. The judgment and orders of the High
Court are set aside and that of the trial court as affirmed by the
appellate court is restored. [Paras 15, 16] [978-E-H; 979-A-B]
*Laksh111a11a Gowda v. State of Karna/aka (1981) 1
Karnataka Law Journal 1; **Syed Bhasheer Ahamed
v. State of Karnataka 1994 (1) KLJ 385 - approved.
Case Law Reference
(1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1
approved
1994 (1.) KLJ 385
approved
Paras 14, 15
Paras 14, 15

## Text

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 973
N. VENKATESHAPPA
v ..
MUNEMMA & ORS.
(Civi!Appea!Nos.135!-!352of2016)
FEBRUARY 15,2016
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.)
Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 - ss. 2(a), 4(3), 5, 6, 7 -
Re-grant of Inam land in favour ofalienor - Right of an alienee -
On facts, agricultural land was Thalavari Inamthi land in the hands
of original owners - Alienation of Inam 1and by sale deed dated
13.05.1971, in favour of N-alienee and he was put in possession of
the land - Re-grant of land in favour of alienorlholder of office on
31.03.1982 in terms of the Act - Re-grant proceedings attained
finality - Eviction of alienee from the land - Right of alienee upon
re-grant of land in favour of alienor - Held: Upon re-grant of the
land in favour of the holder of a Inam land, re-grant must enure to
the benefit of the alieitee, if such alienation was between OJ.02J963
and 07.08.1978 i.e. between the period of appointed date and the
date when the _;Jmendment Act came into force - Upon such-regrant, the title of a holder of the fnam land would relate back to the
date. of coming into force of the Act - Alienation effected by them,
by principles of 'feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the
benefit of the alienee who would get good title to such land after
such re-grant - Alienee would not be "unauthorized holder".
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As laid-down in *Laks'1ma11a Gowda and **Syed
Bhasheer A flamed, upon re-grant of the laud in favour of the holder
of a Service-loam, the re-grant must enure to the benefit of the
alienee, if such alienatio'n was between 01.02.1963 and
07.08.1978. Further, upo'! such re-grant, the title of a holder of
the Service_-inam land would relate back. to the .date of coming
. into force of the Act. In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the
title of the predecessors of the respondents would relate back.
The alienation effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of
"feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the
alienee who would get good iitle to such land after such re-grant.
973
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A Where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and
07.08.1978 the alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". In
the circumstances, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate
proceedings for eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village
Offices Act, 1961 against the alienee, namely, the predecessorB
c
D
in-interest of the appellant. The judgment and orders of the High
Court are set aside and that of the trial court as affirmed by the
appellate court is restored. [Paras 15, 16] [978-E-H; 979-A-B]
*Laksh111a11a Gowda v. State of Karna/aka (1981) 1
Karnataka Law Journal 1; **Syed Bhasheer Ahamed
v. State of Karnataka 1994 (1) KLJ 385 - approved.
Case Law Reference
(1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1
approved
1994 (1.) KLJ 385
approved
Paras 14, 15
Paras 14, 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 35 l1352 of2016.
from the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 and 01.06.2011
of the High Court ofKarnataka in RSA No. 323 of2008 and in Review
Petition No. 4 76of2010.
E
Sampat Anand Shetty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the
F
G
H
Appellant.
S. N. Bhat, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT J. I. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010
in Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011
passed in R.P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore.
3. The Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 abolishes village
offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the
Constitution oflndia. The appointed date under Section 2(a) of the Act
is 01.02.1963. Section 4 of the Act abolishes all village offices on and
with effect from the appointed date and sub-section (3) of Section 4
stipulates that subjectto the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 land annexed
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
975
to a village office shall stand resumed and be subject to the payment of A
land revenue as if it were unalienated land or ryotwari land. Section 5
of the Act lays down that the lands so resumed under Section 4(3) of the
Act and not falling under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act be granted to the
person who were holders of the village offices ;rnmediately prior to the
appointed date on such payment as prescribed. Sections 6 and 7 of the
Act lay down that if the land so resumed is held by an authorized holder
it shall be re-granted to such holder on payment of occupancy price as
prescribed.
4. The Act was amended by Act No.13 of 1978 which inter alia
inserted Section 5( 4) as under:-
"5( 4) Any transfer ofland in contravention of sub-section (3) shall
be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be
forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all
encumbrances and any person· in possession thereof shall be
summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner and
the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the law applicable
to the disposal ofunoccupicd unalienated lands:
Provided that if the person who has transferred the land in
contravention of sub-section (3) is not alive, while disposing of
such land, preference shall be given to the heirs of such person.
Explanation.-For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that
in sub-section (3), and in this sub-section transfer includes creation
of a lease."
Section 7 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act now
reads as under:
"7. Eviction of unauthorised holders etc.-
( I) Where any land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 is in
B
c
D.
E
F
the possession of an unauthorised holder such unauthorised holder
shall be summarily evicted therefrom and the land shall be taken
possession of by the Deputy Commissioner i11 accordance with
G
law: Provided that no such summary eviction shall be made except
after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of niaking
representation.
(2) Any order of eviction pas'sed under sub-sectiQn (I) shall be
final and shall not be questioned in any court oflaw and no injunction
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 2 S.C.R.
A
sh al I be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken
or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of
the power conferred by sub-section (I).
B
c
(3) The land from which an unauthorised holder is evicted under
sub-section (I) shall,-
(a) if it was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to an
inferior village office be re-granted to the holder of such village
office; and
(b) in other cases be disposed of in accordance with the law
applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands."
5. In Lakslimana Gowda v. State of Karnataka', Division Bench
of the High Court had an occasion to consider questions including one
concerning rights of an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or
the authorized holder. It dealt with various issues but the one concerning
the present matter was Question No. (iii) which was to the following
D effect:
"(iii) Did an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the
authorized holder, acquire title to such land, ifthe alienation had
taken place between the date of the coming into force of the
Principal Act and the date of the re-grant, after its re-grant to its
E
holder or the authorized holder under Section S or 6, as the case
may be, of the Principal Act? "
F
6. The answer to the aforesaid question was given in para 66 of
the Judgment in the following words-:
"Hence, our answer to the question is that if the holder or the
authorized holder of a Service lnam land had alienated it after the
Principal Act came into force and before it was re-granted to him
under Section Sor 6 of the Principal Act, the alienee acquired a
title to that land after such re-grant to his aliener."
7. During the course of its discussion concerning the aforesaid
G question, it was also observed:-
"We have already held that though the holder or the authorized
holder of a Service lnam Land got title to such land only when it
was actually re-granted to him under S. S or 6 of the Principal
H ' ( 1981 ) I Kamataka Law Journal I
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
' -·- -
Act, such title related back to the date of coming into force of that
Act. From this, it would follow that if he purported to alienate
such land before it was re-granted to him, but after the Principal
Act came into force, the doctrine offeeding the grant by estoppels
embodied in S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, would apply
and the title he subsequently acquired on such re-grant of that
land, would ensure to the benefit of his alienee, who would get a
good title to such land after such re-grant to his alienor."
8. The aforesaid view in Lakshmana Gowtfal was affirmed by
Full Bench of the High Court in Syed Blwsheer Ahamed v. State of
Karnatakal. While considering the rights of an alienee under an
alienation made between 01.02.1963 and 07.08-1978 i.e. between the
period of the appointed date and the date when the Amendment Act
came into force, the Ful.1 Bench in para 30 (f) of its judgment observed
as under:-
"There is no provision in the Act authorizing the State Government
or its authorities to evict an alienee under an alienation made
between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978. Section 7 is not applicable, as
such an alienee is not an 'unauthorised holder'. If the land
. alienated between 1-2- I 963 and 7-8-1978, is subsequently regranted to the alienor, the benefit of such re-grant, namely, title
will enure to the benefit of the alienee. If the land is not re-granted
to the alienor, but to someone else on the ground that the alien or is
not a 'holder' or 'authorised holder', then the alienee will be in the
position of a transferee from a person without any title; and the
grantee to whom the re-grant is made, will be entitled to obtain
possession from the alienee and the limitation for such grantee to
dispossesses the alienee will commence from the date of regrant."
9.Agricultural land bearing Survey No.83 ofHoshalli Village, Kolar
District, Karnatakaadmeasuring 3 acres 3.9 guntaswas Thalavari Jnamthi
land in the hands of original Baruvardars named Muni Papanna and his
father Narasappa. Said Muni Papanna and Narasappa sold this land
under registered sale deed dated 13 .05.1971 in favourof one Nadumpalli
Muneppa. Pursuant to the sale deed, the alienee was put in possession
of the land. The land in question was re-granted in favour of Muni
Papanna on 31.03. I 982. This was challenged in appeal and the matter
21994 (I) KLJ 385
977
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
978
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
stood remitted to the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, fresh
re-grant proceedings were taken up and the land was re-granted in favour
of said Muni Papanna and two others. The re-grant in favour of those
two others was challenged by Muni Papanna which challenge was
allowed and the re-grant was confirmed in favour of Muni Papanna
alone. Those proceedings attained finality and became conclusive.
I 0. Original SuitNo.19 of2004 was filed by the present appellant,
being the successor-in- interest ofNadumpalli Muneppa i.e. the alienee
in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Srinivaspuri, District Kolar.
It was submitted that after the re-grant in favour of the original holder,
by virtue of the judgments of the High Court ofKarnataka as mentioned
C" herein above, the plaintiff was entitled to the land in question. It was
further submitted that the defendants namely the wife and the children
of Muni Papanna had however executed registered sale deeds in favour
of defendants 5 and 6 and that they were seeking to obstruct the
possession of the plaintiff. With these assertions, the plaintiff prayed for
D
declaration that he be declared absolute owner of the land in question
and also prayed for appropriate permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession.
E
F
11. All the defendants filed common written statement. It was not
disputed that there was alienation in favour of the predecessor of the
plaintiff on 28.05.1971 but it was submitted that in proceedings initiated
byTehsildar under Section 7 of the Act, an orderofeviction was passed
against the alienee and that the alienee was evicted from the land on
24.09.1981. It was thus submitted that on re-grant in favour of Muni
Papanna, the benefit must accrue to the heirs of said Papanna alone and
that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in land in question.
12. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 12.02.2007
accepted the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Relying on the
decisions in Lakslmuma Gowda and Syed B/wsheer Alwmetl it was
observed that the alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08. I 978 was
not invalid and that the land having been re-granted in favour of Muni
G
Papanna, the alienee can certainly claim the benefit by doctrine offeeding
the grant by estoppel in view of the re-grant of land in favour of the
alienor/holder of the office under Section 5( I) or 6 of the Act and the
subsequent sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 would
therefore be of no legal consequence. The suit was decreed declaring
H
the plaintiff to be absolute owner.
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
13. The aforesaid decision of the Trial Court was challenged before
the Principal District Judge Kolar in Regular Appeal No.163 of2007.
The lower Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court
and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and.order dated 05.01.2008.
The respondents carried the matter further by filing Second Appeal
. No.323 of2008 which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated
27.07.2010. It was observed by the High Court that the alienee having
been evicted from the land on 24.09 .1981, as tin the date when re-grant
was ordered, the possession was not thafofthe alienee and as such the
courts below were not justified in relying upon the decisions of the High .
Court Laksltman,a Gowdll and Syed Bltaslteer Alwmed case. The
review petition preferred by the present appellant was rejected by the
High Court vide order dated 1.06.2011 .
. 1.4. We have heard Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Advocate
for the appel !ant an Cl Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Advocate for the respondents
and ha,ve gone through the record and considered the rival submissions.
The law on the point as to the rights of an alienee of an Inam land where
the alienation had occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 stands
settled by the decisions in LllkslmUma Gowda (supra) and Syed
Bltaslteer Altamed (supra).
15. As laid-down in these cases, upon re-grant of the land in
favour of the holder of a Service-Inam, the re-grant must enure to the
benefit of the alienee, if such alienation was between 01.02.1963 and
07 .08.1978. Further, upon such re-grant, the title of a holder of the
Service-inam land would relate back to the date of coming into force
of the Act.
In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the title of the
predecessors of the respondents herein would relate back. The alienation
effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of"feeding the grant by
estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the alienee who would get good
title to such land after such re-grant. As observed by the Full-Bench,
where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 the
alienee would not be '..'unauthorized holder". In the circumstances, the
Tehsildar was not competent to initiate proceedings for eviction under
Section 7 of·the Act against the alienee, namely, the predecessor-in-
. interest of the present appellant. Both the Courts below were, therefore,
right and justified in accepting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and the
High Court was completely inerror in setting aside the concurrent view
and allowing the second appeal.
979
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A
16. We, therefore, allow these appeals. The judgment and orders
of the High Court under appeal are set aside and the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.19 of 2004 as affirmed by
the Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No.163 of2007 is restored. No
orders as to costs.
B
Nidhi Jain
Appeals allo\ved.