Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
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.;section 104 of karnataka land revenue act, 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 the conditions is that grantee should not alienate the property for a period of 15 years. 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...... land admittedly belongs to government and for non-compliance of terms and conditions of grant, government is at liberty to resume the land. - section 70: [p.d. dinakaran, c.j. &v.g. sabhahit,j] sale transaction between a co-operative bank and charitable trust - sale of property by president of co-operative bank to a charitable trust represented by his wife who is not a member of society - bank at taken date raised a dispute before authorities - whether dispute relating this transaction is purely of civil in nature and to be dealt with civil court or a matter touching upon conduct of business of society and attracts provisions of karnataka co-operative societies act - whether such disputes can be referred to registrar of societies held, petitioner-trust purchased the property belonging to the bank during the period when the husband of the petitioner was the president of bank through registered sale deed; the bank had raised a dispute before authorities. trust contended that it has purchased the property in question for valuable consideration through registered sale deed; and the relief sought in the said dispute does not fall within the ambit of section 70 of the act; as the relief sought in the said dispute pertains to the right, title, interest and possession, the same is purely of civil in nature and therefore, only a civil court has the jurisdiction to deal with such matter. on the other hand, bank contended that the property in question belong to the bank and it was fraudulently purchased for a meager amount. single judge, held that the transaction having taken place between former president of the bank while in office on behalf of the society and his wife, though she is not a member of the society, it cannot be totally ruled out that the transaction does not touch upon the conduct and business of the society in the sense the president of the society transacting and having a transaction with his wife in respect of the property of the society, it is not a fit 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.orderdoddakale 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.

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.