Case Note & Summary
In a civil appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court considered the validity of a sale of agricultural land originally assigned to members of the Scheduled Castes under Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. The original grantees, Doddaramaiah and Chikkaramaiah, sons of late Gurappa of Bangalore, were granted five acres of government land on February 13, 1940 for use and enjoyment. The appellant, Papaiah, purchased the land from them under a registered sale deed dated December 19, 1958. Subsequently, the Karnataka Legislature enacted the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, declaring alienation by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe assignees void and prescribing procedure for restoration of land. The original grantees filed an application on April 22, 1985 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act before the competent authority for restoration. The competent authority allowed the application; the appellate authority confirmed it; and the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, leading to the present appeal. The appellant contended that there was no prohibition against him because he obtained title after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment and that he had perfected title by adverse possession. He relied on K.T. Huchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner. The respondents, represented by senior counsel, argued that the appellant had not pleaded adverse possession against the State; his possession was derivative from the grantees; the sale was void and contrary to public policy; and the ratio in R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka applied directly. The Court examined Rule 43(8) and noted that it specifically prohibits alienation of assigned land and prescribes no limitation of time. It emphasized that Article 46 of the Constitution, in terms of its Preamble, enjoins the State to provide economic justice to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections and to prevent their exploitation. Under Article 39(b), the State is mandated to distribute its largess, land, to sub-serve public good. Assignment of land made in furtherance of this object is constitutional policy; any alienation in contravention is not only in violation of constitutional policy but also opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Therefore, any alienation made in violation of Rule 43(8) is void and the purchaser gets no valid right, title or interest. On the plea of adverse possession, the Court held that a person who comes into possession under colour of title from the original grantee must disclaim that title and plead a hostile claim to the knowledge of the State. The appellant had neither taken such a plea nor adduced evidence. The ratio in R. Chandevarappa squarely applied. K.T. Huchegowda was distinguished because it dealt with adverse possession against the purchaser, not against the State. The Court also observed that the plea of adverse possession as against the State did not arise even otherwise because the proceedings were laid before expiry of a period of 30 years. The question of estoppel against the original grantees did not arise as the Act voids the sale and there can be no estoppel against statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Economic Justice - State's obligation to distribute land to weaker sections - Constitution of India, Articles 39(b), 46 - Rule 43(8) assignment aimed at improving economic conditions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; any alienation in contravention violates constitutional policy and public policy under Section 23 of Contract Act; sale void and purchaser gets no title. Held that constitutional mandate of economic justice renders alienation invalid. (Paras not mentioned) B) Contract Law - Public Policy - Contract opposed to public policy void - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23 - Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Sections 4 and 5 - Alienation of assigned land by original grantees was opposed to public policy and void; purchaser acquired no valid right, title or interest. Held that sale is void and appellant cannot derive title. (Paras not mentioned) C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Claim against State by purchaser under derivative title - Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - A person in possession under colour of title from original grantee must disclaim that title and plead hostile claim to knowledge of State; no such plea taken, hence no adverse possession; proceedings initiated before expiry of 30 years. Held that appellant failed to establish adverse possession against State. (Paras not mentioned) D) Statutory Interpretation - Estoppel Against Statute - No estoppel arises when statute declares transaction void - Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Sections 4 and 5 - As Act voids sale, original grantees not estopped from challenging alienation; sale being void, no estoppel against statute. Held that estoppel contention rejected. (Paras not mentioned) E) Land Law - Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands - Rule 43(8) Mysore Land Revenue Code and Karnataka Act - Mysore Land Revenue Code, Rule 43(8); Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Sections 4 and 5 - Rule prohibits alienation without limitation of time; subsequent Act declared alienation void and provided restoration; appeal dismissed, no costs. Held that orders of restoration were valid. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the original grantees were estopped from challenging the sale; whether the sale deed executed by original grantees in favour of appellant was valid; whether the appellant perfected title by adverse possession against the State
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, affirming the orders of the authorities and High Court. It held that the alienation of assigned land was void, the purchaser acquired no title, and no adverse possession or estoppel was established.
Law Points
- Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Code prohibits alienation of assigned land without time limit
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act
- 1978 declares alienation by grantees void
- any alienation contrary to constitutional policy under Articles 39(b) and 46 and public policy under Section 23 of Contract Act is void
- purchaser under void sale gets no title
- adverse possession against State requires disclaiming derivative title and pleading hostile possession to State's knowledge
- no estoppel against statute when sale void
