Holding

Section 5(3) imposes the burden on the person in possession to prove a valid title, and since the appellants failed to do so, the transfer was void under Section 4, justifying the dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary

The appellants, legal heirs of Bhadrappa, claimed ownership of a 3‑acre granted land that had been sold multiple times after the original grant to Gopya Naik in 1955. They contended that the alienation was void under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and sought restitution. The High Court, relying on an order under Section 5, held that the alienation occurred within the period of prohibition and dismissed the writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 5(3), which presumes any person other than the grantee or his legal heirs to be in possession of land transferred voidly, placing the burden on the possessor to prove a valid title. Finding that the appellants failed to discharge this burden, the Court affirmed that the transfer was void under Section 4 and upheld the High Court’s dismissal.

Issues considered

Whether the sale of the granted land by the original grantee violated the prohibition under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
Whether Section 5(3) of the Act places the burden of proof on the person in possession to establish the validity of his title.
Whether the land in question was a free grant or a grant for upset price, affecting the applicability of the prohibition.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition and writ appeal.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 4(3), s. 5(1), s. 5(2), s. 5(3)

Subjects

granted landprohibition of transferburden of proofsection 4section 5Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Actalienationnull and void transfercivil appeal

Judgment

[2008] 1S.C.R.199

.,..._ BHADRAPPA (0) BY LRS. A
).
v.
TOLACHA NAIK
(C.A. No. 7782 of 2001)
JANUARY 8, 2008
B
[DR.. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Government Grants : Granted land - Alienation/Sale of
f ""' - Order of competent authority that alienation was effected
within period of prohibition -High Court dismissing writ petition
by purchaser- Justification of- Held: Justified - Transfer was c
in violation of prohibition contained in the Act - Burden was
on person in possession to prove that his possession was valid
which he failed to establish - ·Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands)
Act, 1978- ss.4(1), (2) and 5(3). D
The land in question was a granted land. The grantee
1 ;'I'. sold the land. It was again sold by the purchaser and
finally by subsequent sale, appellants purchased the land.
Proceedings were initiated on the basis of application that
the alienation by grantee was hit by s.4 of.the Karnataka E
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. An order was passed
in the proceedings under s.5 of the Act to the effect that
alienation was effected within the period of prohibition.
High Court dismissed the writ petition and writ appeal filed F
i ~
by the appellants. Hence these appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:· S.5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain G
Lands) Act, 1978 provides that any person other than the
grantee or his legal heirs in possession of the granted
"" .• .
land, shall be deemed to be in possession under a transfer
which is null and void under ss.4(1) and 4(2) until and
199 H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A unless anything contrary is established. Burden,
therefore, is on the person in possession to prove that "" '
his possession was valid in accordance with law. It was
found factually that the writ petitioner had failed to
establish the same. The transfer was in violation of the
B prohibition of the Act. That being so, the High Court was
right in dismissing the writ petition and the writ appeal.
[Para - 8] [203-C-E]
~.
Guntaiah and Ors. v. Hambamma and Ors. (2005) 6
sec 228 - referred to.
c CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7782
of 2001.
From the final Judgment/Order dated 9.11.2000 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1886/2000.
D WITH
C.A.No. 7799/2001
"': ~
Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik, Satish Daya Nandan and
G.S. Pandey for the Appellants.
E S.K. Kulkarni, G. Gireesh Kumar and Khwairakpam Nobin
Singh, forthe Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
F ~· I
Civil Appeal No. 7782 of 2001
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ
G appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act
(in short the 'High Court Act'). Challenge in the appeal was to
the order passed by a learned Single Judge who had dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bhadrappa. After the death
of Bhadrappa, his legal heirs were brought on record and they
H are the appellants before this Court.
BHADRAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. 201
TOLACHA NAIK [PASAYAT, J.]
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A
The land in question was granted some time in the year
1955 in favour of one Gopya Naik who is referred hereinafter
as grantee. Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.10.1956.
Seetamma, widow of the grantee who was also the mother of
respondent No.3 sold the land in the year 1959 in favour of one B
Gangappa who in turn sold the said land to Ahmad Pasha and
there was subsequent sale by Ahmad Pasha to Bhadrappa.
The land in question bears Survey No.106 measuring 3 acres
and 5 guntas.
c
4. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of an
application that the alienation was hit by Section 4 of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act').
5. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act read as follows: D
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract
or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either
before or after the commencement of this Act, in E
contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the
law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be
null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall
be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by
such transfer.
F
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act,
transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the
previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply
also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or G
order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other
authority.
5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.- (1)
Where, on application by any interested person or on H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A information given in writing by any person or suo-motu,
and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the
Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of
any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of
section 4, he may,-
B (a} by order take possession of such land after evicting
all persons in possession thereof in such manner as
may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except
after giving the person affected a reasonable
- '

c
opportunity of being heard;
(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal
heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore
the land to such grantee or legal heir; such land shall
D be deemed to have vested in the Government free
form all encumbrances. The Government may grant
such land to a person belonging to any of the
'<, \
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in
accordance with the rules relating to grant of land.
E (1 A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the
Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer
of any granted land is not null and void pass an order
accordingly.]

F (2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner
.... 1
rJnder section SA, any order passed under sub-sections(1)
and (1A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any
court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court
in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken
by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power
G
conferred by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted
land is in the possession of a person, other then the original
grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the
H contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land
BHADRAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. 203
TOLACHA NAIK [PASAYAT, J.]

. by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of A
. .It
sub-section (1) of section 4."
6. An order was passed in the proceeding under Section
5 of the Act to ttie effect that the alienation had been effected
within the period of prohibition. The appellant took the· stand
that the land was not a free grant land. It was a grant for upset 8
price. The authorities concluded that it was a free grant. The
writ petition was dismissed.
J ''t·
7. The stand before the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench were reiterated. c
8. Section 5(3) of the Act clearly provides that any person
other than the grantee or his legal heirs in possession ofthe
granted land, shall be deemed to be in possession 'under a
transfer which is null and void under Sections 4(1) and 4(2) until
and unless anything contrary is established. Burden, therefore, D
is on the person in possession to prove that his possession
was valid in accordance with law. It was found factually that the
)( writ petitioner had failed to establish the same. The transfer in
favour of Gangappa was in violation of the prohibition of the
Act. That being so, the High Court was right in dismissing the E
writ petition and the writ appeal. In Guntaiah and Ors. v.
Hambamma and Ors. (2005 (6) SCC 228 at para 14) it was
noted as follows:
"It is also pertinent to note that the prohibition regarding
alienation is a restrictive covenant binding on the grantee. F
The grantee is not challenging that condition. In all these
proceedings, challenge is made by the third party who
purchased the land from the grantee. The third party is not
entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the granter
to the grantee were void. As far as the contract of sale is G
concerned, it was entered into between the Government
and the grantee and at that time the third-party purchaser
had no interest in such transaction. Of course, he would
be entitled to challenge the violation of any statutory
provisions but if the grant by itself specifically says that H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A there shall not be any alienation by the grantee for a period i.
of 15 years, that is binding on the grantee so long as he
does not challenge that clause, more so when he purchased
the land, in spite of being aware of the condition. The Full
Bench seriously erred in holding that the land was granted
under Rule 43-J and that the Authorities were not
empowered to impose any conditions regarding alienation
without adverting to Section 4 of Act 2 of 1979. These
lands were given to landless persons almost free of cost .,,,. •
and it was done as a social welfare measure to improve
the conditions of poor landless persons. When these lands
c were purchased by third parties taking advantage of
illiteracy and poverty of the grantees, Act 2 of 1979 was
passed with a view to retrieve these lands from the third-
party purchasers. When Act 2 of 1979 was challenged,
this Court observed in Manchegowda v. State of Kamataka
D (SCC pp. 310-11, para 17)
"17. Granted lands were intended for the benefit and
enjoyment of the original grantees who happen to belong
to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. At the
E time of the grant, a condition had been imposed for
protecting the interests of the original grantees in the
granted lands by restricting the transfer of the same. The
condition regarding the prohibition on transfer of such
granted lands for a specified period, was imposed by
virtue of the specific term in the grant itself or by reason
F
of any law, rule or regulation governing such grant. It was ~ \

undoubtedly open to the granter at the time of granting
lands to the original grantees to stipulate such a condition
the condition being a term of the grant itself, and the
condition was imposed in the interests of the grantee.
G Except on the basis of such a condition the granter might
not have made any such grant at all. The condition imposed
against the transfer for a particular period of such granted
lands which were granted essentially for the benefit of the
grantees cannot be said to constitute any unreasonable
H restriction. The granted lands were not in the nature of
BHADRAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. 205
TOLACHA NAIK [PASAYAT, J.]
~

A properties acquired and held by the grantees in the sense A
of acquisition, or holding of property within the meaning of
.. Article 19( 1)( f ) of the Constitution. It was a case of a
grant by the owner of the land to the grantee for the
possession and enjoyment of the granted lands by the
grantees and the prohibition on transfer of such granted B
lands for the specified period was an essential term or
condition on the basis of which the grant was made. It has
J
'""' to be pointed out that the prohibition on transfer was not
for an· indefinite period or perpetual. It was only for a
particular period, the object being that the grantees should c
enjoy the granted lands themselves at least for the period
during which the prohibition was to remain operative.
Experience had shown that persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to whom the
lands were granted were, because of their poverty, lack of
D
education and general backwardness, exploited by various
persons who could and would take advantage of the sad
~ );
plight of these poor persons for depriving them of their
lands. The imposition of the condition of prohibition on
transfer for a particular period could not, therefore, be
considered to constitute any unreasonable restriction on E
the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted lands.
The imposition of such a condition on prohibition in the
very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and legal."
Civil Appeal No. 7799 of 2001: F
.I ""
9. In view of the position of law indicated in the connected
Civil Appeal No.7782 of 2001 this appeal is sans merit.
10. Above being the position, there is no merit in these
appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to
G
costs.
~.
D.G. Appeals dismissed.