Judgment:
ORDER
1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question for decision of the Full Bench:-
'Whether the conditions prescribed for grant of lands under Rule 43-G of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 are applicable to grant of lands under Rule 43-J of the Rules?
2. The facts of these cases are briefly as under:--
Portions of Sy. No. 160 of Menasikyathanahalli village and Sy. No. 96 of Heggur village of T. Narasipur Taluk, Mysore District, were temporarily leased to certain persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes before the commencement of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. Subsequently, those lands were granted to the respective lessees or their legal heirs under Rule 43-J of the said rules at a price of Rs. 500/- per acre. By Official Memorandum dated 7/12-3-1968, the Assistant Commissioner, T. Narasipur Division, confirmed the grants in favour of the occupants, subject to payment of Rs. 500/- per acre and requested the Tahsildar to issue permanent Saguvali Chit to the occupants. No conditions were imposed in the said memorandum confirming the grants in favour of the occupants. In pursuance of it, the Tahsildar issued permanent Saguvali Chits to the occupants in the year 1968 in the form entitled 'Grant Certificate' acknowledging receipt of the occupancy price and stipulating the terms and conditions subject to which the Saguvali Chit was issued. In all these certificates, the Tahsildar has added in hand, a term that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years. But the grantees sold the granted lands to the appellants herein immediately after the issue of Saguvali Chits, i.e., within a few months.
3. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the P.T.C.L. Act' for short) came into force on 1-1-1979. Inproceedings commenced under Section 5 of the Act, on the applications made by the grantees/their legal heirs, the Assistant Commissioner declared the alienations in favour of appellants were null and void on the ground that they contravened the term of grant prohibiting alienation within 15 years; and consequently directed resumption of the lands and restitution to the grantees/their legal heirs. The said orders were confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. The purchasers challenged the said orders by filing writ petitions and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 10-12-1991, upheld the orders of the authorities -- Chikka Kullegowda v State of Karnataka. Feeling aggrieved, the purchasers preferred appeals from which this reference arises.
4. The appellants contended that the grant under Rule 43-J was not subject to any condition prohibiting alienation and Rule 43-J of Mysore Land Revenue Rules as amended by the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 ('the Rules' for short) under which the grants were made do not contain any term prohibiting the sale either permanently or within any specified period; as the grant of agricultural lands were in favour of persons who were already in occupation in pursuance of temporary leases granted before the commencement of the rules, the grant was governed by Rule 43-J, and Rule 43-G of the rules which stipulated several conditions (including bar on alienation) subject to which regular grants had to be made, was inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-J. It is further contended that the Assistant Commissioner ordered the grant of the lands by issue of permanent Saguvali Chits to the lessees who were in occupation of the lands subject to payment of Rs. 500/- per acre, without stipulating any conditions. Thus, neither the rules relating to grant, nor the terms of grant prohibited sale of granted lands. Therefore, the sales of the granted lands by the grantees in favour of appellants immediately after the grant, were valid as they did not contravene the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant. It is also contended that as the Assistant Commissioner who is the authority empowered to make the grant, did not stipulate any condition barring alienation, it was not open to the Tahsildar who was only entrusted with the ministerial act of issuing the Saguvali Chits in terms of the grant, to stipulate a conditionthat the grantee shall not alienate the property for a period of fifteen years, while issuing the Saguvali Chits and, therefore, the said condition not being a term of the grant, was ineffective and invalid and had to be ignored.
5. On the other hand, the grantees contended that the grants made under Rule 43-J were subject to and governed by Rule 43-G as the grantees belong to Scheduled Castes and Tribes; therefore, the bar on alienation for a period of fifteen years contained in Rule 43-G(4) applied to the grants in their favour; at all events, the Saguvali Chits issued to them in pursuance of the grants contained a specific condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years. The sales were all within a few months of the issue of Saguvali Chits. Section 4 of the Karnataka SC and ST (P.T.C.L.) Act, 1978 provides that if the alienation was in contravention of either the terms of grant or the law providing for grant, the same shall be null and void. In these cases, the sales were in contravention of not only the law governing the grant, viz., Rule 43-J read with Rule 43-G(4) but was also in contravention of one of the terms of grant contained in the Saguvali Chit which specifically prohibited alienation. Hence, the sales by the grantees in favour of the appellants were void under Section 4 of the P.T.C.L. Act of 1978 and therefore, the orders of resumption and restoration under Section 5 of the Act were in order.
6. Thus one of the questions that arose for consideration before the Division Bench was whether grants under Rule 43-J was subject to conditions prescribed under Rule 43-G. It was found that an earlier Division Bench of this Court, in Smt. Siddamma v Chikkegowda and Others, has held that the conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G were inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-J. The Division Bench, however, felt that in principle, there was no distinction between grants under Rules 43-C and 43-D and grants under Rule 43-J, as the only difference in regard to grants under Rule 43-J was that the grantee was already in occupation of the land granted on the date of grant. It felt that Rule 43-J ought not to have been interpreted in such a manner as to exclude the applicability of Rule 43-G. As the Division Bench found some difficulty in following the construction of Rule 43-J in Siddamma's case,supra, but was not inclined to refer all the matters relating to the appeal to the Full Bench, it has only referred the aforesaid question to the Full Bench for decision under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
7. The grant of lands were regulated by different rules at different points of time. Rules 41 to 43-M of Mysore Land Revenue Rules, framed under Section 233 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, in regard to grant of lands were substituted with Rules 41 to 43-L, by Rule 2 of the rules with effect from 10-5-1960. These amended rules were in force when the grants were made. Let us briefly refer to them.
7.1 Rule 41 contains the definitions. Rule 42 deals with the power of different Revenue Officers in respect of grant of lands. The authorities who can grant the lands are the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the extent of land and value of the land as provided therein. Rule 43 contains the procedure for disposal of lands for cultivation. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 43 requires persons seeking grant of lands under the control of the Revenue Department, to make applications to the Tahsildar by giving the particulars required therein.
7.2 Rule 43-A provides for preparation of lists of lands available for disposal in every village by the Tahsildar. As per the said rule, the Tahsildar shall prepare a list of the lands which have been or have to be assigned for special purpose under Section 39 of the Code, such as for free pasturage, for village cattle, for forest reserve or for any other public purpose including cattle sheds and stands, sites for stacking hay and other agricultural produce, manure pits, extension of Gramatanas, provision of sites for school buildings, playgrounds and gymnasia, sites for other public buildings like offices of Village Panchayats and Co-operative Societies, burial and cremation grounds. It provides that only unoccupied lands fit for cultivation remaining after reserving sufficient extent for the aforesaid purposes, shall be included in the list of lands available for disposal.
7.3 Rule 43-C permits to ordinary grants of lands to individuals, that is, to any adult who is poor and who is a bona fide agriculturist and grant of lands to adjoining or nearby land holders for better enjoyment of the lands held by them. Rule43-D deals with grant of lands to (a) political sufferers; (b) displaced holders and displaced tenants; and (c) educational institutions.
7.4 Rule 43-E provides that out of the lands available for disposal in a village, certain percentage should be reserved for disposal in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, political sufferers and residents of tbe village and provides that notwithstanding the reservations provided for, the land available may be granted to displaced holders and displaced tenants.
7.5 Rule 43-F stipulates the following order of priority to be applied in regard to lands available for disposal in a village after reservation of the extent referred in Rule 43-E for grant to members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes and political sufferers:--
(i) Displaced holders and displaced tenants ordinarily resident in the village;
(ii) Displaced holders and displaced tenants ordinarily residents in a neighbouring or nearby village;
(iii) Educational Institutions;
(iv) Poor and landless persons ordinarily resident in the village;
(v) Ex-Servicemen;
(vi) Insufficient holders ordinarily resident in the village;
(vii) Poor and landless persons ordinarily residing in neighbouring or nearby villages;
(viii) Insufficient holders ordinarily residing in neighbouring or nearby villages.
It also provides the extent of land that can ordinarily be granted.
7.6 Rule 43-G prescribes the conditions subject to which the grant of lands is to be made under the preceding rules. The said Rule is extracted below:--
'43-G. Grant of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions.--(1) In the case of grant of lands to applicants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to otherapplicants, who are unable to pay the occupancy pnce on account of poverty, the occupancy price may be waived up to rupees two hundred and the balance recovered in three annual instalments;
(2) In the case of grant of land to applicants who are ex-servicemen the occupancy price shall be waived upto the extent awarded by Government under the Military Concession Rules;
(3) In the case of grant of land free of occupancy price, the grant shall be subject to the condition that the grantee shall pay contribution or betterment levy in respect of the land and the value of trees standing on the land;
(4). Where the grant is made free of cost, or is made at a price which is less than the full market value, the grant shall be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land, after the grant:
Provided that such land may be alienated with the previous sanction of the Government and subject to such conditions as the Government may specify, if the Government is of the opinion that the circumstances of any case, it is just and reasonable to permit such alienation either for purposes of acquiring some other land or for any other purpose.-
(a) the alienation of any land in favour of the State Government or co-operative society as security for loans obtained for improvement of the land or for buying cattle or agricultural implements for cultivation of the land, or alienation for cultivation of the land, or alienation of any land in favour of the Indian Coffee Board as security for loans advanced by the Indian Coffee Board under the Coffee Development Plan;
(b) the leasing of any land by a person who is widow, a minor or who is subject to physical or mental disability or who is a serving member of the armed forces;
(5) The grantee shall cultivate the land personally;
(6) The land shall be brought under cultivation within two years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land;
(7) The grant is liable to be terminated and the land resumed if any of the aforesaid conditions is not fulfilled, and on such resumption the land shall vest in Government free from all encumbrances:
Provided that no land shall be resumed under this clause except after giving an opportunity to the grantee or his successor in interest to show cause why the grant should not be terminated and the land resumed'.
7.7 Rule 43-H deals with grant of land for cultivation of plantation crops. It contains provisions relating to price, conditions of grant, extent to be granted and termination. There is no dispute that the conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G are inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-H.
7.8 Rule 43-J deals with grant of land to persons to whom lands have been leased temporarily. The Rule is extracted below.-
'43-J. Grant of land to persons to whom lands have been leased temporarily.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules of this chapter, in the case of agricultural land leased by Competent Authority to any person for purposes of cultivation at any time before the commencement of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, if such land is available for disposal and if the conditions of the lease have been complied with, the land may be granted to the lessee'.
7.9 Rule 43-K makes it clear that nothing in the rules should be deemed to confer any right to the grant of any land, and the authority competent to make or sanction the grant may pass orders as it deems fit, taking all the relevant circumstances into consideration. Rule 43-I deals with cancellation of grants which have been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations. Rule 43-L provides that the State Government, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of any case or classes of cases it is just and reasonable to relax any of the foregoing provisions of the rules, it may by order direct suchrelaxation subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order and thereupon land may be granted in such a case in accordance with such direction.
8. The question whether grants made under Rule 43-J were also subject to the conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G, came up for consideration before this Court repeatedly. It is sufficient to refer to (i) Chikkegowda and Another v State of Karnataka and Others, (ii) Shivanna v State of Karnataka and Others, (iii) Smt. Venkatamma v State of Karnataka and Others and (iv) K. Chowdaiah v Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and the decision of the Division Bench in Siddamma's case, referred to above. It has been consistently held in these decisions that the conditions prescribed in Rule 43-G are applicable only to grant of land ma'de under the rules preceding Rule 43-G, that is, Rules 43-C and 43-D and will not apply to grants under Rule 43-J. The reasoning given by the Division Bench in Siddamma's case, to hold that Rule 43-G cannot be invoked in regard to grants under Rule 43-J is extracted below:--
'The rules indicate that list of lands available for cultivation should be prepared and thereafter the persons desirous of applying for the grant of land are entitled to apply and when such applications are received, the concerned Competent Authority is required to consider those applications and select the applications for grant having due regard to the merits of the applications and also bearing in mind the priority for grant prescribed under the rules. These provisions obviously have no application to the grant of land made under Rule 43-J to persons to whom the land had already been leased temporarily for cultivation. In the case of grant of land under Rule 43-J there is no question of considering the applications of other persons. The Competent Authority concerned is required to find out as to whether the land had been granted for temporary cultivation to the person concerned and secondly as to whether he had fulfilled eligibility for grant of land and once those conditions are found to have been fulfilled the authority is competent togrant the land. One special feature about the grant is the person concerned would have already been in possession and enjoyment of the land for several years even before the grant of land and he would have invested money and time and engaged in cultivating the land even prior to the grant of land under Rule 43-J. Therefore, of such a grant falling under Rule 43-J no other condition is imposed as is evident from the non obstante clause with which it begins. Rule 43-G cannot be invoked to the grant made under Rule 43-J, also for the reason Rule 43-G expressly makes it clear that the conditions prescribed in the said rule is applicable for the grant of lands made under the rules preceding it'.
The referring Bench has expressed an opinion that the above construction of Rules 43-G and 43-J in Siddamma's case, confers an undue advantage on the grantees under Rule 43-J and therefore requires reconsideration. We will therefore re-examine the matter with reference to the scheme and intent of the rules.
9. The rules contemplated three types of grants: (i) grants under Rules 43-C and 43-D in respect of unoccupied land available for disposal; (ii) grants under Rule 43-H, for cultivation of plantation crop; and (iii) grants under Rule 43-J, to occupants who were already in occupation in pursuance of temporary. leases and who had fulfilled the conditions of such lease. While there is no dispute that the conditions in Rule 43-G, were applicable to grants under Rule 43-C and 43-D, and inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-H, there is a dispute about the applicability of the said conditions in Rule 43-G, to grants under Rule 43-J.
9.1 Rule 43-E related to reservation of lands for grant to applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes and political sufferers, from out of the land available for disposal in a village. Rule 43-F enumerated the order of priority for grant among applicants in regard to the lands available for disposal. It is evident from Rule 43-A that lands available for disposal in any village refer to unoccupied land fit for cultivation remaining after providing for special purposes enumerated therein. The wording of Rule 43-G also made it clear that it was intended to apply to unoccupied lands; firstly the opening words 'grant of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions', refer to Rules 43-C and 43-D which relate to grant of unoccupied land; secondly, sub-rule (4) contained a bar onalienation for a period of 15 years from the date of grantee taking possession of the land after the grant, which meant that the rule applied only to cases where the land was unoccupied at the time of grant and grantee was delivered possession after the grant; thirdly sub-rule (6) provided that the grantee shall bring the land under cultivation within two years from the date of grantee taking possession of the land which again implied that the rule applies only in regard to cases where the granted land came into the possession of grantee after the grant. Thus, a careful reading of Rules 43-E, 43-F and 43-G discloses that they were applicable only to the first category of grants, that is, grants of unoccupied lands available for disposal, made under Rules 43-C and 43-D.
9.2 In regard to the second category, that is grants under Rule 43-H, the provisions regarding reservation, priority and conditions of grant contained in Rules 43-E, 43-F and 43-G are inapplicable, as Rule 43-H is self-contained.
9.3 In regard to third category, that is grants to occupants under temporary leases, as the lands not occupied land, Rules 43-E, 43-F and 43-G were inapplicable. The grants under Rule 43-J were contemplated only in favour of persons who were already in possession in pursuance of temporary leases, who had complied with the conditions of such leases. In such cases, grantees would have already been subjected to certain conditions at the time of putting them in possession on temporary lease and, therefore, there was no need or no occasion for stipulating any further conditions which were applicable to fresh grants relating to unoccupied lands. It may be noticed here that temporary leases were introduced with the intention of increasing the food production in the State by Government Order dated 11-4-1942 (clarified by Government Order dated 13-6-1942) which directed the Deputy Commissioners to lease unoccupied cultivable lands, to persons agreeable to bring such lands under cultivation, temporarily for periods not exceeding three years in the first instance with option to the lessees to purchase the lands at reasonable upset price at the end of the lease period (such price not exceeding the market value of the land at the time it was given out for cultivation).
9.4 There is yet another difference among the three categories of grant. In grants under Rules 43-C and 43-D, the extent that can be granted is specified as two acres of garden/wet land withassured irrigation facilities from tanks and/or four acres of other kinds of wet land or ten acres of dry land with a provision for grant in excess, subject to availability. On the other hand, in the second category (grants under Rule 43-H) the grant can be upto 50 acres in regard to coffee/tea/cardamom cultivation and upto 25 acres in regard to rubber pepper cashewnut cultivation. In regard to third category (grants under Rule 43-J) the question of any maximum extent being specified did not arise as the grant was in regard to land already in possession of the grantees.
9.5 In view of the distinct nature of the three types grants, the scheme of the rules contemplated the conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G being made applicable only to grants under Rules 43-C and 43-D. Rule 43-G clearly states that it will apply to the grants Under the preceding rule (Rules 43-C and 43-D), thereby making it clear that it will not apply to the grants under the subsequent rules, that is, Rules 43-H and 43-J. Rule 43-J also starts with a non obstante clause emphasising that notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules (which includes Rule 43-G), the land can be granted to the occupants if such land is available for disposal, that is, if such land is not required for any of the special purposes specified in Rule 43-A.
10. But for the doubt expressed by the referring Bench, it would be unnecessary to examine the scheme and intent of the rules to find out whether conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G were applicable to grants under Rule 43-H, in view of the dear and express language used in Rule 43-G, which start with the words: 'Grant of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions'. If the intention was to make the conditions in Rule 43-G applicable even to grants under Rule 43-H and/or Rule 43-J, then Rule 43-G would have begun with the words: 'Grant of lands under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions', or with the words: 'Grant of lands under Rules 43-C, 43-D and 43-J shall be subject to the following conditions', instead of using the words 'Grant of land under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions'. It is now well-settled that where the language used in a Statute is plain, unambiguous and clear, effect must be given to it irrespective of the consequences. It is only when the language employed is vague or ambiguous, it will be necessary or permissible to call in aid the tools of interpretation. Having regard to the clear provisions of Rule 43-G, it is not possible toapply the conditions mentioned in Rule 43-G, to grants under Rule 43-J.
11. The respondents contend that in regard to matters arising under P.T.C.L. Act, the question whether Rule 43-G will govern the grants under Rule 43-J or not, should be decided with reference to the provisions of P.T.C.L. Act. The principles regarding interpretation of earlier statutes with reference to later statutes are well settled. A later statute will not be used as an aid to construction of an earlier statute. But if the earlier statute is ambiguous, a later statute on the same subject, may be used as a legislative exposition of the earlier statute. It is permissible to take and construe together, different statutes made at different times, and not referring to each other, as one system and as explanatory of each other, only if those statutes are of similar scope or on the same subject. But where the subject matter of the two statutes are different and there is nothing in the later statute, which is intended to be an interpretation of what is contained in the earlier statute, there is no question of later statute being called in aid to interpret the earlier statute. There is nothing in the P.T.C.L. Act, which is of any assistance to interpret Rule 43-G and Rule 43-J. It is, therefore, not permissible to call in aid, the provisions of P.T.C.L. Act to find out whether conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G were applicable to grants under Rule 43-J. Even assuming that provisions of P.T.C.L. Act should be employed for the purpose of interpretation of rules, the position would be no different. Section 4 of P.T.C.L. Act invalidates any sale made in violation of the terms of grant or the rules governing the grant. P.T.C.L. Act does not however prescribe the conditions, violation of which, will invalidate a sale. Only when the terms of grant or the rules relating to grant are violated, the P.T.C.L. Act will come into play. Hence, P.T.C.L. Act is of no assistance to interpret Rules 43-G and 43-J.
12. The respondents next contended, supporting the decision of the learned Single Judge, that Rule 43-G will be inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-J, except v/here the grant is to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. We do not find how the very same rule can be subjected to two interpretations in case of two classes of persons unless the rules or any law relating to the matter provide for and contemplate such exception being made in the case of persons belonging toScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Section 11 of the P.T.C.L. Act, on which reliance is placed, provides that the provisions of the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or, order of a Court, Tribunal or other Authority. Section 11 is not attracted as we are not concerned with any law in force, as the rules were repealed by the Mysore Land Grant Rules, 1968, long prior to P.T.C.L. Act came into force. Secondly, there is nothing in the rules which is inconsistent with the provisions of P.T.C.L. Act. The provisions of the P.T.C.L. Act will apply only if the transfer of a granted land is in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant. To find out whether an alienation or transfer is in contravention of any term of the grant or the law providing for such grant, it is necessary to look to the terms of the grant or law providing for such grant. In this case, to find out whether the transfer contravenes the law providing for such grant, we have to find out whether the transfer contravenes the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. Thus, Section 11 of the P.T.C.L. Act has no relevance to find out whether conditions in Rule 43-G apply to grant of lands under Rule 43-J does not arise.
13. The above discussion makes it clear: (a) Rule 43-J contemplated grants to persons who were already cultivating the lands for several years, by being in possession in pursuance of temporary leases granted to them, who formed a separate and distinct class; and in such cases, there was no need to stipulate any of the conditions specified in Rule 43-G which were applicable to only grants relating to unoccupied lands where possession was yet to be delivered; (b) In view of the non obstante clause with which Rule 43-J began and in the absence of any indication in Rule 43-J that the grants under that rule to persons who were already in possession would be governed by the conditions in Rule 43-G and having regard to the express provision in Rule 43-G that the conditions therein would apply only to the grants made in the preceding rules (that is, Rules 43-C and 43-D), the only inescapable conclusion is that conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G were inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-J. We are thus in respectful agreement with theviews expressed in Siddamma's case, supra. We, therefore, answer the question referred for opinion in the negative.
14. Considerable arguments were addressed on the question whether the Authority granting land under Rule 43-J can impose any conditions at the time of making the grant; and on the effect of a condition imposed in the Saguvali Chit by the Tahsildar that the grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of fifteen years when such condition was not imposed by the order of the Authority making the grant. We express no opinion on these questions as they have not been referred for our opinion.