Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka

Gowramma vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 22, 1985

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/383839

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/383839
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Doddakale Gowda, J.
Decided On: Jul 22, 1985
Case Number: W.P. No. 11094 of 1985
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1964) - Section 104 -- For breach of terms and conditions of grant, land liable for resumption by Government.;Purchaser from grantee challenged resumption proceedings, initiated by Government for breach of condition as to non-alienation.;Secti...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 100 and 104

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gowramma

Advocate C.B. Srinivasan, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 100 and 104
Reported In: ILR1985KAR3111

Excerpt

.....case to stall the proceedings pending before the authority. being aggrieved by the said order, the writ appeal is filed. the appellants vehemently contended that as none of the appellants are members of bank, the dispute against non-members of the bank cannot be maintained; the transaction entered between the appellants and the bank cannot be made subject-matter of dispute under sub-section (1) of section 70; as the dispute was raised against a non-member of the society and as the same is not touching upon the business or activities of the society, the interim order passed rejecting the application filed by the appellants under section 70(3) or the act is liable to be set aside. held, it is clear that the property of the bank was purchased by the appellant-trust represented by a person who is none else than the wife of erstwhile president of the bank. the said transaction squarely attracts section 70(2)(e) of the act, which has caused deficiency in the assets of the bank. under these circumstances, no illegality or error in the order and there is no good grounds to interfere with such well-reasoned order and consequently, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. - particulars set out above clearly demonstrate that alienation being within the prohibited period, grantee has committed breach of conditions annexed to grant......of unauthorised occupants) act,1961 (karnataka act 3 of 1962) any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land which is not transferable by virtue of any condition lawfully annexed to the tenure under the provisions of section 91, section 98 or section 99 may be summarily evicted in the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after written notice, as the (tahsildar) may deem reasonable, be liable toforfeiture or summary removal.(underline is mine)enables an authority to resume land from a person unauthorisedly in occupation or in possession of granted land for breach of conditions annexed to grant. one of theconditions as amongst others in this case, is that grantee should not alienate the propertyfor a period of 15 years. particulars set out above clearly demonstrate that alienation being within the prohibited period, grantee has committed breach of conditions annexed to grant. section 100 read with section 104 of land revenue act provides machinery for resumption of granted land for breach of terms and conditions of grant. relying on para 24 of the decision of supreme court in manchegowda and others -v.- state of karnataka and others, ilr 1984(2) kar 1- 1984(2) klj 2 sri c.b. srinivasan, learned counsel for petitioner, vehemently urged that purchaser has acquired prescriptive title, hence he cannot be evicted. learned counsel for petitioner rightly and fairly conceded adverse possession dealt in para 24 relates to right of grantee vis-a-vis a purchaser,extinguishment of rights of grantee and does not deal with rights of government. having regard to provisions of karnataka scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (prohibition ofalienation of certain lands) act, 1979, which provide for restoration of possession to grantee, supreme court hasheld that on perfection of adverse possession as against grantee, question of restoration of possession will not arise......

Full Judgment

ORDER

Doddakale Gowda, J.

1. Rights of grantee (not impleaded as party in this Writ Petition) is defeasible subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions on which grant is made. Undisputedly grant is on 3-11-1961 and alienation in favour of petitioner is on 10-3-1963. Action taken for resumption by Government for breach of conditions imposed is questioned in this Writ Petition.

2. Section 100 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 declares that a sale of 'granted land through process of Court without obtaining sanction of prescribed authority asnull and void. Section 104 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which reads thus:

Summary eviction of person unauthorisedly occupying land -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1961 (Karnataka Act 3 of 1962) any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land which is not transferable by virtue of any condition lawfully annexed to the tenure under the provisions of Section 91, Section 98 or Section 99 may be summarily evicted in the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after written notice, as the (Tahsildar) may deem reasonable, be liable toforfeiture or summary removal.

(Underline is mine)

enables an authority to resume land from a person unauthorisedly in occupation or in possession of granted land for breach of conditions annexed to grant. One of theconditions as amongst others in this case, is that grantee should not alienate the propertyfor a period of 15 years. Particulars set out above clearly demonstrate that alienation being within the prohibited period, grantee has committed breach of conditions annexed to grant. Section 100 read with Section 104 of Land Revenue Act provides machinery for resumption of granted land for breach of terms and conditions of grant. Relying on para 24 of the decision of Supreme Court in Manchegowda and others -v.- State of Karnataka and others, ILR 1984(2) KAR 1- 1984(2) KLJ 2 Sri C.B. Srinivasan, Learned Counsel for petitioner, vehemently urged that purchaser has acquired prescriptive title, hence he cannot be evicted. Learned Counsel for petitioner rightly and fairly conceded adverse possession dealt in para 24 relates to right of grantee vis-a-vis a purchaser,extinguishment of rights of grantee and does not deal with rights of Government. Having regard to provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition ofAlienation of Certain Lands) Act, 1979, which provide for restoration of possession to grantee, Supreme Court hasheld that on perfection of adverse possession as against grantee, question of restoration of possession will not arise. That is not the position here. Land admittedly belongs to Government and for non-compliance of terms andconditions of grant. Government is at liberty to resume the land. Petitioner has not asserted adverse possession as against Government. In this view, I find no merit, Writ Petition is rejected.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1985 Same Parties Gowramma vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Property Same Judge Doddakale Gowda, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 100 and 104

Property