Judgment:
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE3D DAY OF SEPTEMBER2014BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.39827 OF2014[SCST]. BETWEEN: SRI K.A.HARIDAS S/O LATE K.M.ANJANEYAPPA60YEARS, R/AT DODDATOGURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130 ... PETITIONER (BY:SRI SANJAY GOWDA. N.S., ADVOCATE) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR563101. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR563101 AND:
1.
2.
3. SRI CHOWDAPPA S/O MUNILINGA NAIKA, MAJOR, OBALPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130. ...RESPONDENTS (SRI D.ASHWATHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED2105.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ALSO THE ORDER
DATED1611.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN LND SC ST2109-10 (ANNEXURE–A) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2. ORDER
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner and confirming the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar directing resumption and restoration of the land in question under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land), 1978 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Petitioner has purchased 2.00 acres of land, comprised in Sy.No.5 of Obalapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk from the sons of original grantee by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.8.2002. Respondent No.3, who is one of the sons of the grantee, moved the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption and restoration of land in question contending interalia that the sale was hit by Section 4(2) of the Act and was void. The Assistant Commissioner, passed an order dated 16.11.2011 directing resumption of the land to the Government and restoration of the same to the grantees/his legal heirs holding that sale had been effected after the Act came into force and was contrary to Section 4(2) of the Act. On appeal, Deputy Commissioner has confirmed 3 the same. In this background, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Sri N.S.Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner urges that, as the non-alienation period stipulated in the grant had expired at the time when the property was purchased on 14.8.2002, it cannot be said that the sale deed executed was void. He draws the attention of Court to Section 6 of the Act to contend that if that was the intention of the Legislature in imposing prohibition for registration of the document purporting to transfer the granted land, it would not have just stated under Section 6 that ‘registering officer shall not accept any document for registration in respect of the granted land, except where such transfer was in accordance with the terms of grant of such land,’ but would have enacted a total prohibition for registration.
4. It is his submission that, if the provisions contained in Section 6 coupled with Section 4(2) of the Act and the nature of condition imposed even in respect of grant made after coming into force of the 1978 Act is examined, it would be clear that such alienations made after the expiry of the period of restriction imposed in the Grant Certificate, 4 though the alienation was made after 1978 Act came into force, the same will not be hit by provisions contained in Section 4(2). He, therefore, submits that question of seeking permission under Section 4(2) of the Act would not arise in respect of transfer of granted land made after the coming into force of the Act wherever transfers are made after the expiry of the non-alienation period.
5. In the light of this contention and having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on careful perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the Division Bench judgment in the case of BHEMANNA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT & OTHERS, reported in ILR2010KAR5011 I am of the view that the legal contention sought to be urged by the petitioner is misconceived and is untenable in law.
6. Section 4(2) of the Act prohibits transfer of granted land after the 1978 Act came into force. The said provision is extracted hereinbelow:- “4.Prohibition of transfer of granted lands. (1) xxxx (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any 5 granted land without the previous permission of the Government.” 7. The term ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1)(b) and scope of prohibition enacted under Section 4(1)(2) of the Act has been considered by the Division Bench in the decision referred to supra. It is held that there was absolutely no room to infer that ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1)(b) would enjoy the characteristic of granted land only till the non-alienation period or the conditions imposed with regard to the same at the time of grant were in force. It is further held that any such attempt to read into the definition, such a requirement would tantamount to super adding a condition into the definition of the term ‘granted land.’ It is also held that such a departure from the rule of literal construction might be legitimate in a case to avoid any part of the statute becoming meaningless or in order to give effect to the intention of the legislature from an enactment read as a whole. However, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(b) regarding definition of the term ‘granted land’ and the provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Act enacting a prohibition for transfer of the land without prior permission of the 6 Government after the Act came into force, it has been held that after the Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979, ‘granted land’ shall not be sold or shall not be acquired by any person without previous permission of the Government, even after the completion of non-alienation period prescribed under the grant order. Having regard to the law laid down by the Division Bench in the afore-mentioned judgment, contentions urged by Sri Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted.
8. The provisions contained in Section 6 cannot be understood or construed to limit the main intention of the legislature, as is explicit in Section 4(2) of the Act. Section 6 only enacts a prohibition for registration of transfer of granted lands. It reads as under:- “6. Prohibition of Registration of Transfer of Granted Lands.- Notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, on or after the commencement of this Act, no registering officer shall accept for registration any document relating to the transfer of, or to the creation of any interest in, any granted land included in a list of granted lands furnished to the registering officer except where such transfer is in accordance with this Act or the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant.” 7 9. Therefore, it is clear from the provisions of Section 6 that where such transfer is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, registering officer shall not accept such document for registration. Hence, the provisions of Section 6 also will not come to the aid of petitioner, whether it is read independently or in conjunction with the prohibition imposed under Section 4(2) of the Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE VGR