Holding

A sale deed executed after the Act’s commencement without prior government permission is void, even if the underlying agreement for sale was executed before the Act.

Summary

The case concerned a 2‑acre land granted by the Government of Karnataka to a Scheduled Caste grantee with a condition that it not be alienated for fifteen years. After the restriction period, an agreement to sell was executed on 5 July 1976, but the sale deed was executed and registered on 13 October 1986, after the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 had come into force, and without prior government permission. The authorities declared the sale void under Section 4 of the Act and ordered resumption of the land. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "transfer" in Section 3(e) of the Act, which expressly includes an agreement to sell, and the prohibition in Section 4(2) that no transfer may be made after the Act’s commencement without government permission. Applying the plain language of the statute and its protective objects, the Court held that the sale deed was null and void, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The sale deed executed after the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, but based on an agreement for sale executed before the Act, is it void under Section 4 of the Act?

Legislation cited

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978s. 11, s. 3(e), s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 5, s. 6
Registration Act, 1908
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 54

Subjects

Scheduled CastesScheduled Tribesland grantprohibition of transferagreement for salenullityKarnataka ActTransfer of Property Actresumptionrestoration of land

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 451

DHARMA NAIKA A
v.
RAMA NAIKA AND ANR.
. (Civil Appeal No. 2802 of 2001)

FEBRUARY 5, 2008
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
~ .
... Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978:

c
s. 4 - Prohibition of transfer of granted land under - Sale
deed executed and registered after the commencement of the
Act, but in respect of which, agreement for sale executed before
commencement of the Act - Sale effected without previous
permission of Government - Validity of - Held: Not valid -
Agreement for sale of any granted land is included within the D
meaning of 'transfer' as defined in s. 3(e) of the Act- Therefore,
transfer made without prior permission of Government was null
-"'4 and void in view of s. 4(2) of the Act - Legislative intent behind
enactment of the Act - Discussed.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s. 54 -Agreement for sale E
not same as sale.
Words and Phrases: 'Transfer' - Meaning of - .In the
context of s. 3(e) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
F
+ Act, 1978.
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal is: Whether the sale deed, which was
executed and registered after the commencement of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes G
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, but in
~ respect of which, the agreement for sale was executed
before the commencement of the Act, would be hit by the
provisions of S.4 of the Act?
451 H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of the statement of objects
and reasons, for which the legis!ature has introduced
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 would
8 show. that the non-alienation clause contained in the ~
existing land grant rules and the provisions for .,
·cancellation of grants where the land was alienated in ~
contravention of the above said provisions Were found '
insufficient to help the Scheduled Castes and .Scheduled
C Tribes grantees . .From the objects and reasons of the Act,
it -is evident that ignorance and poverty of the scheduled
castes abd schedu~ed tribes were expfoited by persons
belonging to the affluent and pqwerful ~ectlons to get
sale!? or mortgages,.either for a nominal consideration or
D for no consideration at all and on account of this, the
scheduled castes and schedules tribes had become the
victim~ of circumstances. It is for this r~ason and to fulfill
the purposes of the grant, it was thought fit ·by the
legislature that the land, even if it has been alienated, must
E be restored· to the original grantee or his heirs and legal
representatives who are admittedly scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes. It is in that bac~ground, the Act was
introduced providing for prohibition of transfer. and
restoration of lands granted by the Government to
F persons belonging to scheduled· castes and scheduied -+-
tribes in the State. However, it is also evident from the
relevant provisions of the Act, that total prohibition of
transfer by scheduled castes and scheduled tribes was
also not intended by the legislature. It is provided that in
G respect of transfers· after the commencement of the Act, it
would be open to transfer the land granted to scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes if prior permission is _.,.
obtained from the State Government. [Para 4] [458·8, C,
D, E, F, G; 459-A]
H 1.2 "Transfer" under s.3(e) of the Act means a sale,
DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 453

gift, exchange, mortgage with or without possession, A
lease or any other transaction not being a partition among
members of a family or a testamentary disposition and
includes the creation of a charge or an agreement to sell,
exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any other
transaction. A bare reading of the definition of "Transfer" s
as defined in s.3(e) of the Act would show that an
'agreement for sale" of any "granted land" is included
within the meaning of "Transfer". That being the position,
the word "Transfer" as defined under the Act is an
inclusive definition. That is to say, it includes "sale" as C
well as "agreement for sale" , although an agreement for
sale under the Transfer of Property Act is not a transfer
and the right, title or interest in the land does not pass
until the sale deed is executed and registered. "Sale" has
been defined in s.54 of the Transfer of Property Act which
means transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid D
or promised or part-paid and part-promised. An agreement
to sell does not by itself create any interest of the
proposed vendee in the immovable property but only
creates an enforceable right in the parties. Therefore, it is
clear that under the general law, that is, under the Transfer E
of Property Act, an 'agreement for sale' is not the same as
'sale' and in the case of an agreement for sale, the tit[e of
the property agreed to be sold still remains with the vendor
but in the case of 'sale', title of the property is vested with
the vendee. Therefore, an agreement for sale is an F
executory contact whereas sale is an executed .contract.
[Paras 6-8] [459-0, E, F, G; 460-A, B, C]
2.1. Admittedly, the parties had entered into an
agreement for sale in respect of the granted land before
t~e commencement of the Act. It is also an admitted G
position that the respondents belonged to the scheduled
caste community. From an overall consideration of the
objects and reasons for which this Act was introduced
and the relevant provisions of the Act, it is pellucid that
the definition of "Transfer" under s.3(e) of the Act includes H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A an agreement for sale also and "Transfer" has been so ....
defined to protect the right, title and interest of the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes so that possess-
ion of the lands could be restored to them even if they
had entered into an agreement for sale. S.4 deals with
B prohibition of transfer of granted lands. Sub-section (1)
of s.4 starts with the non-obstante clause and provides
that any transfer of granted land, either before or after the
commencement of the Act in contravention of the terms ).
I-
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,
c title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed
ever to have conveyed by such transfer. Therefore, it is
clear from a plain reading of s.4(1) that if any one of the
conditions is satisfied, it would render the transfer null
and void. [Para 13] [464-C, D, E, F, G; 465-A, B]
D
2.2. So far as the first condition, namely, transfer in }
contravention of the terms of the grant of such land is I

concerned, it cannot be disputed in the facts of this case ...

E
that there was no contravention of the terms of the grant
of such land as the transfer was admittedly made after 15
li
years of the date of certificate, which was the only
condition regarding prohibition oftransfer in the grant. It
is also not in dispute that there is no contravention of any
law providing for such grant. Therefore, so far as these
two conditions are concerned, it cannot be disputed that
F they are not satisfied. In respect of the third condition i.e.
-t-
transfer made in contravention of sub-Section 2 of s. 4 of
the Act, a transfer of any granted land made after the
commencement of the Act in contravention of sub-Section
2 shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in
G such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have
conveyed by such transfer. Sub-Section 2 of s.4 clearly
says that no person shall, after the commencement of this -+
Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land
without the previous permission of the Government.
H Therefore, after the commencement of this Act, if any
·~
DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 455
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

transfer is effected or any person acquires any granted A
land by transfer, without the previous permission of the
Government, such transfer 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. [Para 14]
[465-C, D, E, F, G; 466-A] B
2.3. Admittedly, the transfer was effected after the
..l(
commencement of the Act by a deed of sale dated 13th of
October, 1986 without the previous permission of the
Government. That being the position, such transfer must
be held to be null and void and no right, title or interest in c
such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have
conveyed by such transfer. [Para 15] [466-A, B, C]
Manchegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1984)
3 sec 301 - distinguished.
D
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2802
of 2001
.-(
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.7.2000 of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 3542 of
.1998. E
R.S. Hegde (for P.P. Singh) for the Appellant.
Vaijayanthi Girish (for T.N. Rao) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
+ TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. The subject matter of this
~ appeal relates to the Government granted land measuring 2
acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.365/1 (New No.685) situated at
Nayakanahatti Village, Challakera Taluk, District Chitradurga
in the state of Karnataka (herein after referred to as the
G
'scheduled land'). The certificate of grant was issued on 1oth of
September, 1955 in favour of one Shri Tejyanaika in which one
~
" of the conditions stipulated was that the grantee shall not
alienate the granted land for a period of 15 years.
2. On 1oth of September, 1970, the abovementioned period H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A of 15 years during which the land could not be alienated as per
the conditions of the certificate of grant had expired. After the
expiry of the aforesaid period of 15 years, more precisely on
5th of July, 1976, an agreement to sell was executed by the legal
heirs of the original grantee who, in the meantime, had expired.
B Under this agreement for sale, the vendors, namely, the legal
heirs of the original grantee had agreed to .~ell the scheduled
land to the father of the appellant. Subseq.uent to the agreement
for sale and the commencement of the Act, more precisely on
13th of October, 1986, a deed of sale was executed and
C registered by the vendors in respect of the scheduled land. After
the registration of the sale deed, the authority under the Act
initiated a proceeding for resumption of the scheduled land ~s.
according to the authorities, the sale was in violation of the
provisions of the Act. This is because the sale was effected
afterthe commencement of the Act without previous permission
D of the government. An order was passed by the Assistant
Commissioner who had the authority· to direct resumption of
the land holding that the sale having taken place on 13th of
~
October, 1986, when the Act had already come into force, the I

sale deed dated 13th of October, 1986 must be found to be null
E and void in view of the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the
Act. An appeal was carried against the aforesaid order before
the appellate authority which was also dismissed, inter alia, on
the finding that the title of the scheduled land could not pass
under the registered sale deed dated 13th of October, 1986 as,
F admittedly, the same was executed and registered after the
. coming into force of the act and therefore, in view of Section 4
(2) of the Act, the sale made without obtaining prior permission
of the Government was found to be null and void. Feeling
aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the Assistant
G Commissioner as well as the appellate authority, a writ petition
was filed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, which
was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court and against
that order of the learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was filed,
which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, this special leave
petition was filed in respect of which leave has already been
H granted. ··
DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 457
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and A
examined the orders passed by the High Court as well as the
authorities below. On a careful examination of the aforesaid
orders and the materials on record and also the provisions of
the Act, including the objects and reasons for which this act was
introduced, we are of the view that this appeal is liable to be B
dismissed for the reasons given hereunder, but before we
proceed further, we may keep it on record that when the ·
·agreement for sale dated sth of July, 1976 was subsisting, the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ·
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short c
'the Act') came into force with effect from 1st of January, 1979.
4. The only question that needs to be decided in this appeal
is whether the sale deed, which was executed and registered
after the commencement of the Act but in respect of which, the
agreement for sale was executed before the commencement D
of the Act, would be hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. ·
In order to decide this question and before considering the
relevant provisions of the act with which we would be associated
for a proper decision in this case later, it would be appropriate
to reproduce the statement of objects and reasons of the act E
which was introduced by the Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary,
dated 30th of June, 1978, which reads as under: -
"The non-alienation clause contained in the existing Land
Grant Rules and the provisions for cancellation of grants
where the land is alienated in contravention of the above F
said provision are found not sufficient to help the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes grantees
whose ignorance and poverty have been exploited by
persons belonging to the affluent and powerful sections
to obtain sales or mortgages either for a nominal G
consideration or for no consideration at all and they have
become the victims of circumstances. To· fulfill the
purposes of the grant, the land even if it has been
alienated, should be restored to the original grantee or
his heirs. H
.)-
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

_.
A The Government of India has also been urging the
State Government for enacting a legislation to prevent
alienation of lands granted to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes by Government on the lines of the
model legislation prepared by it and circulated to the
B State Government."
A plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons,
~
for which the iegislature has introduced this Act, would show )lo,_
that the non-alienation clause contained in the existing land grant
rules and the provisions for cancellation of grants where the land
c was alienated in contravention of the above said provi.sions were
found insufficient to help the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes grantees. From the objects and reasons of the Act, it is
evident that ignorance and poverty of the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes were exploited by persons belonging to the
D affluent and powerful sections to get sales or mortgages, either
for a nominal consideration or for no consideration at all and on
account of this, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes had
)..
become the victims of circumstances. It is for this reason and to
fulfill the purposes of the grant, it was thoug.ht fit by the legislature
E that the land, even if it has been alienated, must be restored to
the original grantee or his heirs and legal representatives who
are admittedly scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It is also
evident from the objects and reasons of the Act that the Central
Government was also urging the State Government to enact a ·'

F legislation to prevent alienation of lands granted to the scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes by the State Government on the -t
lines of the model legislation prepared by it and circulated to
the State Government. It is in that background, the Act was
introduced providing for prohibition of transfer and restoration
of .lands granted by the Government to persons belonging to
G
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the State. However,
it is ·also evident from the relevant provisions of the Act with ..,
which we would be dealing with later that total prohibition of
transfer by scheduled castes and scheduled tribes was also
not intended by the legislature. It is provided that in respect of
H
1,
DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 459
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

transfers after the commencement of the act, it would be open A
to transfer the land granted to scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes if prior permission is obtained from the State Government.
5. Keeping the objects and reasons for which the Act was
introduced in mind for the purpose of deciding the present
appeal and also for the purpose of giving proper interpretation B
to the relevant provisions of the Act with which we are concerned,
A:
let us now deal with certain relevant provisions of the Act. Section
3 of the Act is a defining section. Section 3(b) defines "Granted
Land" which means any land granted by the Government to a
person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the c
Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such
person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating
to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of imams; other
than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word
"granted" shall be construed accordingly. D
6. Next is the definition of "Transfer" under Section 3(e) of
the Act. "Transfer" means a sale, gift, exchange, mortgage with
or without possession, lease or any other transaction not being
a partition among memQers of a family or a testamentary
disposition and includes the creation of a charge or an E

.., agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into
any other transaction.

A bare reading of the definition of "Transfer" as defined in
Section 3(e) of the Act would show that an "agreement for sale" F
of any "granted land" is included within the meaning of "Transfer".
That being the position, the word "Transfer" as defined under
the Act is an inclusive definition. That is to say, it includes "sale"
as well as "agreement for sale", although an agreement for sale
under the Transfer of Property Act is not a transfer and the right,
G
.title or interest in the land does not pass until the sale deed is
~ executed and registered. "Sale" has been defined in Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act which means transfer of
ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-
paid and part-promised. As noted herein earlier, an agreement
H
)-
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A to sell does not by itself create any interest of the proposed ~

vendee in the immovable property but only creates an
enforceable right in the parties. (See : Rambhau Namdeo
Gajre vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (Dead) through LRs.
[(2004) 8 SCC 614]). Therefore, it is clear that under the general
B law, that is, under the Transfer of Property Act, an 'agreement
for sale' is not the same as 'sale' and in the case of an agreement
for sale, the title of the property agreed to be sold still remains -of
with the vendor but in the case of 'sale', title of the property is jo.

vested with the vendee. Therefore, an agreement for sale is an
c executory contract whereas sale is an executed contract.
7. Let us now consider Section 4 of the Act, which is the
most relevant provision for the purpose of deciding this appeal.
Section 4 deals with prohibition of transfer of granted lands and
reads as under : -
D
"(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
contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the
law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be
E 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.
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act,
F 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
order of a civil court or of any award or order o.f any other
G authority."
8. Section 5 deals with resumption and restitution of . -1
granted :lands. Under this provision, power has been conferred
on the Assistant Commissioner to initiate a proceeding and hold
that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-
H
'
t
/
DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 461
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

section (1) of Section 4 and if the transfer· of such granted land A
is found to be null and void, he is emp·owered to take possession
of such land after evicting all such persons in possession thereof
in such manner as may be pr~scribed under the Act. This power
can be exercised by the Assistant Commissioner on an
application by any interested person or on information given in B
writing by any person or even suo moto.
9. Section 6 of the Act prohibits registration of transfer of
granted lands. It says that notwithstanding anything in the
Registration Act, 1908, on or after the commencement of this
Act, no registering officer shall accept for registration any C
document relating to the transfer of, or to the creation of any
interest in, any granted land included in a list of granted lands
furnished to the registering officer except where such transfer
is in accordance with this Act or the terms of the grant of such
land or the law providing for such grant. From a bare reading of D
this provision, it is clear that an embargo has been placed on
the registering officer to accept any document for registration
relating to the transfer of, or to the creation of any interest in,
any granted land except where the transfer is in accordance
with the grounds mentioned in the said section. E

- 10. The only other relevant provision to be considered for
the purpose of this appeal is Section 11 of the Act, which reads
as under:
" The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding F
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 of the Act, therefore, provides that the G
provisions of this act shall override all other laws inconsistent
with this Act. Since, in this case, we are not concerned with any
inconsistency with 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, it is needless to deal with this provision H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A in the present dase. ~

11. Keepihg these provisions and the objects and reasons
of the Act in minCi, let us now deal with the submissions advanced
by the learned rcounsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard
B to the fact that the transfer of the granted land was made after
the expiry of th:e prohibited period and before the coming into
force of the Act such transfer could not be hit by the provisions
,

;...
contained in Section 4 (2) of the Act. In this connection, the
1

learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to
c Section 3(e) qf the Act,. which defines "Transfer". We have
already dealt with the definition of "Transfer" herein earlier.
According to lthe learned counsel for the appellant, the
prohibition imposed under section 4 of the Act would not be I
~;

applicable to ~he facts of the present case. As noted herein
D earlier, the learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of
the above, the! High Court as well as the authorities below had
committed an ~rror in holding that the sale deed, having been
executed and registered after the commencement of the Act,
must be found to be null and void and that by the said sale deed,
1

E the right, title dr interest in the granted land must be restored by
the Assistant c;;ommissioner, in the exercise of his power under
Section 5 of the Act, to the respondents. I,
I

This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
was contestJd by the learned counsel appearing for the
F respondentsl According to the learned counsel for the -;;
'f
respondents, the transfer of the granted land must be hit by
Section 4 of the Act as, admittedly, the sale deed was executed
1

and registered after the commencement of the Act. The learned
counsel for th~ respondents also contended that in view of the
G prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Act, even if the transfer
was made before the commencement of the act in view of the
agreement for ~ale, still since the sale deed was executed and -1
,
registered after the commencement of the act, the same must
be hit by sedtion 4 of the Act and therefore, no right, title or
H interest in such granted land shall be conveyed or be deemed
,..
'"
DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 463
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

ever to have conveyed by such transfer and that being the A
position, no interference could be made with the impugned
judgment as well as with the orders of the authorities.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after examining the objects and reasons and the relevant
provisions of the Act, as noted herein earlier, in depth and in B
detail, we have no hesitation to hold that the submissions ·Of the
) learned counsel for the appellant cannot at all be accepted. It is
-~ true that the agreement for sale in respect of the granted land
was executed before the commencement of the Act. It is also
an admitted position that "Transfer" under the Act includes an c
agreement to sell as well. Keeping this fact in mind, let us now
see whether in view of Section 4 of the Act, the transfer of the
land, in respect of which the agreement for sale was executed
before the commencement of the act but which was effected
after the commencement of the Act by execution and registration D
of the sale deed, could be said to be null and void. Section 4 (1)
of the Act in clear terms provides that notwithstanding anything
..f. contained in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any
transfer of granted land made either before or after the
commencement of the Act in contravention of either (a) the E
• terms of grant of such land; or (b) the provisions of the law
providing for such grant; or (c) sub-section (2) of Section 4 of
the Act, it 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. Therefore, under Section 4 (1) of the F
..,. Act, it can be safely concluded that this provision declares any
transfer of granted land made either before or after the coming
into force of the Act, to be null and void if it is in contravention of
the conditions specified therein.
Section 4(2) of the Act, as noted herein earlier, deals with G
the transfer of granted land after the commencement of the Act
~ i.e. after 151 of January, 1979. For the purpose of Section 4(2),
the court must be satisfied that 1) the sale deed was executed
and registered after the commencement of the Act and 2) the
same was executed and registered without seeking prior H
I
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
I
A permission of the state government. Therefore, Section 4(2)
1

clearly postul~tes that a transferee cannot acquire the granted
land from the· grantee without seeking the permission of the
government nbr can the grantee transfer it without seeking prior
permission fromI
the government. We have already .
considered
B the scheme o~ the act as also the objects and reasons for which
it was introdu1ced. It is an admitted position that the act was
introduced to ~elp and protect the right, title and interest of the
scheduled ca~tes and scheduled tribes, in respect of the granted )._
lands, whos~ poverty. and status in the society was taken
c advantage.of by some rich and affluent persons who took their
larids either by paying a paltry sum or even without paying
anything to th~m. .
13. As Inoted herein earlier, it is true that in this case,
admittedly, th:e·parties had entered into an agreement for sale.
D in respect of t~e granted land before the commencement of the
Act. It is also an admitted position that the respondents belong/
belonged to tre scheduled caste community. As already noted
herein earlier, for the purposes of this act, "Transfer'' has been
defined to in$1ude an "agreement for sale" although under the
E general law, an "agreement for sale" will not by itself transfer the
granted land ~utomatically to the purchaser/appellant. From an
overall consit:ieration of the objects and reasons for which this
act was intro;duced viz., to protect the right and interest of the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in respect of the granted
F lands and the relevant provisions of the Act, it is pellucid that the
definition of ":Transfer'' under Section 3(e) of the Act includes an +
agreement for sale also and "Transfer'' has been so defined to
protect the ri ght, title and interest of the scheduled castes and
1

scheduled tribes so that possession of the lands could be
restored to tfuem even if they had entered into an agreement for
G
sale. It would be necessary for us at this stage to examine
Section 4of1he Act in depth and in detail. As noted herein earlier, -.,
Section 4 deals with prohibition of transfer of granted lands.
Sub-sectionf(1) of Section 4 starts with the non-obstante clause
and provides that any transfer of granted land, either before or
H
I
- DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
465

after the commencement of the Act in contravention of the terms A
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. In our view, therefore, it is cl~arfrom
a plain reading of Section 4(1) that if any one of the conditions B
is satisfied, it would render the transfer null and void.
14. Let us, therefore, consider whether any of the conditions
is satisfied in the present case and thereby, whether, the transfer
shall be null and void conveying or deeming ever to have
conveyed no right, title or interest of such land by such transfer. C
So far as the first condition, namely, transfer in contravention of
the terms of the grant of such land is concerned, it cannot be
disputed in the facts of this case that there was no contravention
of the terms of the grant of such land as the transfer was
admittedly made after 15 years of the date of certificate, which D
was the only condition regarding prohibition of transfer in the
grant. It is also not in dispute that there is no contravention of
any law providing for such grant. Therefore, so far as these two .
conditions are concerned, it cannot be disputed that they are
not satisfied. Now, let us take into consideration the third E
condition i.e. transfer made in contravention of sub-Section 2
of Section 4 of the Act. In respect of this condition, a transfer of
any granted land made after the commencement of the Act in
contravention of sub-Section 2 shall be null and void and no
right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be F
deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. Sub-Section
2 of Section 4 clearly says that no person shall, after the
commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any
granted land without the previous permission of the Government.
Therefore, sub-Section 2 of Section 4 prohibits transfer or G
acquisition by transfer, either by the transferor or by the
transferee of any granted land without the previous permission
of the Government. Therefore, after the commencement of this
Act, if any transfer is effected or any person acquires any granted
land by transfer, without the previous permission of the
H
/

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Government, such transfer shall be null and void and no right,
1

title or intere~t in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed
ever to have q;onveyed by such transfer.
15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned,
admittedly, ttle transfer.was effected after the commencement
a
B of the Act by deed of sale dated 13th of October, 1986 without
the previous! permission of the Government. That being the
position, we have no hesitation to hold that such transfer must >--
be held to be null and void and no right, title or interest in such
land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed
C by such tranSter.
I
16. As ~rgued and noted herein earlier, the learned counsel
for the appe1;1ant submitted that in view of the admitted fact that
the agreem~nt for sale, which is also a transfer within the
meaning of Section 3(e) of the Act, was made before the
0 1

commencerpent of the Act, it cannot be held that such transfer
was null anp void and that no right, title or interest shall be
conveyed by such transfer. We are unable to agree with this
submission iof
the learned counsel for the appellant. As noted
herein earlier, it is true that by virtue of Section 3(e) of the Act,
E "Transfer" i~cludes an agreement for sale. We have to keep in
mind that irl order to protect the right, title and interest of the
scheduled: castes and scheduled tribes, this Act was
promulgatetlI as it •was found that some affluent and influential
persons of the society, either by payment of a mere consideration
F or by no payment at all, sought to get the property transferred in
their favour from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
1

community. In our view, it is for this reason and in order to protect
the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes community, transfer
has been defined to include an agreement for sale under the
G Act so that even if an agreement for sale is executed by a
·scheduled baste or scheduled tribe and possession is delivered
to the vendee, it would be open to the authority under Section 5
of the Act Ito take steps for resumption of the land from the
vendee. Otherwise, there can be cases where merely by entering
H into an ag~eement for sale, possession of the land is delivered
I
"
...... DHARMA NAJKA v. RAMA NAIKAAND ANR. 467
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
)--
to the vendee and supposing transfer as defined in this act does A
not include an agreement for sale, then in such cases, it would
not be open to the authority under the Act to take steps for the
resumption of the granted land as, merely by executing an
agreement for sale, no transfer is effected.
17. Before parting with this judgment, we may note that 8
the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention,
.4. as noted herein above, relied on a decision of this Court in the
case of Manchegowda & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
[(1984) 3 SCC 301]. This decision was also relied by the learned
counsel who appeared for the appellant before the learned single c
judge of the Karnataka High Court. In our view, the decision of
this Court in Manchegowda's case was rightly distinguished
by the learned single judge. We are in agreement with the
decision of this Court in Manchegowda's case but the scope
of challenge by the petitioners in that decision was limited which D
was stated at paragraph 7 of the said judgment, as follows: -
....._ "It may be noted that the validity of the Act in so far as it
imposes prohibition on transfer of granted land after the
commencement of the Act has not been challenged and
E
the principal objection to the validity of the Act is taken
because of the provisions in the Act seeking to nullify
the transfers of granted lands effected before the
commencement of the Act."
-i
Therefore, we are in full agreement with the views F
~
expressed by the learned single judge of the High Court that the
scope of challenge by the petitioners in the aforesaid decision
of this Court was limited and therefore, that decision cannot be
of any help to the appellant in the present case.
18. That being the position, we do not find any substance G
~
in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and
accordingly, this appeal fails. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.
H