Holding

A restriction prohibiting alienation of land for fifteen years imposed under Rule 43‑J is valid and enforceable, and any transfer contravening that condition is void under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether land granted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries under Rule 43‑J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 could be subject to a 15‑year restriction on alienation, even though the rule itself does not expressly provide such a condition. The Court held that Rule 43‑J is an enabling provision and the Government, as the paramount title‑holder, may impose conditions permissible by law, including the alienation restriction contained in Rule 43‑G. It rejected the High Court's reliance on marginal notes and the title of Rule 43‑G as a basis for interpretation, emphasizing that side notes are not legitimate aids to construction. The Court further affirmed that Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 declares any transfer contravening the grant terms null and void, making the restriction enforceable against third‑party purchasers. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the Full Bench judgment and upholding the order restoring the lands to the original allottees.

Issues considered

Can a condition restricting alienation of land for fifteen years be validly imposed under Rule 43‑J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960?
Do marginal notes or titles of Rule 43‑G constitute permissible aids to the construction of the rule?
Does Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 render any transfer in violation of the grant condition void?
Is the alienation restriction a binding restrictive covenant enforceable against third‑party purchasers?

Legislation cited

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978s. 11, s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

land grantalienation restrictionscheduled castesscheduled tribesrestrictive covenantnullity of transferinterpretation of marginal notesland revenue rulesKarnataka

Judgment

A GUNTAIAH AND ORS.
v.
HAMBAMMA AND ORS.

JULY 22, 2005

B [K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN AND P. VENKA TARAMA REDDI, JJ.]

Land Laws:

Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960-Rules 43-G and 43-
C J-Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 [Act 2of1979}-Sections 4, 5 & 11-Landless
persons belonging to SCs and STs-Land granted to them under Rule 43-J-
Condition restricting alienation of the lands to third parties for a period of
15 years-Validity of-Held, valid-Though Rule 43J does not provide for
D any such condition, condition restricting alienation as stipulated in Rule
43G is applicable-Jn any case, any transfer of granted land in contravention
of the terms of the grant is rendered null and void by virtue of Section 4 of
Act 2 of 1979.

Interpretation ofStatutes-Marginal notes-Held: Cannot be considered
E as legitimate aid to consa-uction-High Court erred in interpreting Rule 43G
of the 1960 Rules based on its title, since it has got the effect of only marginal
notes-Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) R1,iles, 1960-Rule 43~G.

Under the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, certain
lands were granted to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
F Initially, these lands were given to them on temporary lease and later by virtue
of Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960, these lands were given to them permanently
with a restriction that the grantees shall not alienate these lands to third .
parties for a period of 15 years.

G The High Court held that ifthe grant is made under Rule '.13-J, there
could not have been any condition restricting the alienation and if at all there
were any such conditions they are null and void, on grounds that conditions
restricting alienations are given under clause (4) of Rule 43-G and these
provisions would 11pply to grant of lands made under the preceding rules and
not apply to Rule 43-J which comes after Rule 43-G Qfthe Rules of 1960.
If 770

'
GUNTAIAH v. HAMBAMMA 771
This view has been taken based on the title/marginal note of Rule 43-G. The A
High Court was also of the view that under Rule 43-J, it is not stated that
there shall be any conditions prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the Court held
that authorities were not empowered to impose any such conditions. Hence
the present appeals by the State and the affected parties.

Allowing the appeals, the Court B

HELD: 1. The conditions restricting alienation imposed by the
authorities are legally valid and th.e finding of the High Court to the contrary
is not correct. (781-A]

2.1. Rule 43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 C
is only an enabling provision which permits the competent government
authorities to grant title to lessees. The Government being the paramount
title-holder is empowered to impose any condition which is not against the
law and it is binding on the grantees. All these grants of land are made under
the general provisions of rules and Rule 43~J by itself is not a provision by D
which grants are made. All the general provisions of the Rules of 1960 could
be made applicable to such grant if the grant is made at a price lesser than
the market price, or is made free of cost. In all these cases, lands were given
almost free of cost. (778-D, E)

2.2. In the title to Rule 43-G, it is stated that the grants of lands under E
the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions. This title to
the rules as such cannot be taken as the key words to interpret Rule 43-G.
They have got the effect of only marginal notes. The marginal notes are not
considered as legitimate aid to construction of any section or rule. (778-F)

Chandler v. D.P.P., (1964) A.C. 763, referred to.
F

2.3. When Rule 43G itself says that where the grant is made free of
cost or at a price which is less than the full market value, such grant shall
be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of
15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land after the G
grant, such conditions could be imposed on any grant made to the party.
(779-A)

3.1. In any case, the High Court failed to take into account the clear
language employed in Section 4 of Act 2 of 1979, according to which any
transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

~ A this Act 'in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land' shall be null
and void. (779-BJ

3.2. The violation of the terms of grant itself gives rise to the action
under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Act 2 of 1979. So long as the
terms of the grant prohibiting transfer are not opposed to any specific
B provision of law, they cannot be violated and the transferee gets no rights by
virtue of such invalid transfer. (779-CJ

4.1. The lands in these cases were given to landless persons almost free
of cost and it was done as a social welfare measure to improve the conditions
C of poor landless persons. When these lands 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.
(779-G)

4.2. The prohibition regarding alienation is a restrictive covenant
D binding on the grantee. The third party who purchased the land from the
grantee is not entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the grantor to
the grantee were void. As far as the contract of sale is 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
E by itself specifically says that there shall not be any alienation by the grantee
for a period 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, inspite of being
aware of the condition. (779-D, E, F)

F Manchegowda and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1984) 3 SCC
'· ~ 301, referred to.

CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4308-4310 of
1998.
·.··
G From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.98 of the Karnataka High Court
in W.A. Nos. 493/94, 304 and 363 of 1992.
WITH
('c.A. Nos. 6044-6047 of 1998..
r . .{ .

. .-·
H < .S:~. Kulkarni and M. Gireesh Kumar, for Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the
. ,·....
GUNTAIAH v. HAMBAMMA [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 773

Appellants. A
R.S. Hegde and Chandra Prakash for P.P. Singh for the Respondents.

S.R. Hegde, Arvind Verma and Satya Mitra for State of Kamataka.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. All these appeals have been filed against
the common Judgment passed by the Full Bench of the Kamataka High Court
in five Writ Appeals.

Under the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment Rules), 1960 [hereinafter c
being referred to as "Rules of 1960"], certain lands were granted to members
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Initially, these lands were given
to them on temporary lease and later by virtue of Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960,
these lands were given to them permanently with a restriction that the grantees
shall not alienate these lands to third parties for a period of 15 years. These
lands were granted to them during the period 1959-65. The Kamataka Scheduled
D
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act,
/
1978 [hereinafter being referred to as "Act 2 of 1979"] came into force on
· 1.1.1979. Section 4 of this Act is to the effect that any transfer of granted land
made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention
of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, E
shall be null and void and no right, title or interest on such land shall be
conveyed nor be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. The
persons who obtained .grant of Government land, contrary to the condition
regarding alienation, transferred the properties to third parties. In some cases,
even the transferees had effected further transfer of such lands to others.
Section 5 of Act 2 of 1979 empowers the Assistant Commissioner to pass
F
appropriate orders for restoration of the land to the original allottee in case
any transfer was effected contrary to Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of Act
2 of 1979 provides that an Assistant Commissioner, on application by any
interested persons or on information given in writing by any person, or suo-
motu, after such inquiry, if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land G
is null and void as provided under sub-Section (1) of Section 4, may by order,
take possession of such land after giving a reasonable opportunity of being
/ heard to the person evicted, and restore the land to the original allottee. An
appeal also is provided against the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner. Section 11 of Act 2of1979 further states that Act 2of1979
H
(.
I

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

·A shall have overriding effect over the other laws.

In all these cases, the original allottees who were either scheduled
castes or scheduled tribes transferred the property to third parties without
obtaining previous permission of the Govemmerit. Later, the original allottees
or their. successors-in-interest filed applications before the Assistant
B Commissioner praying for restoration of lands which were transferred contrary
to Section 4 of Act 2 of 1979. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting
inquiry in these cases held that all the transfers were null and void and
directed restoration of possession to the original grantees. The affected
parties filed appeals and tpose appeals were dismissed by the appellate
C authority. Those orders were challenged before the High Court and the learned
Single Judge confirmed the orders passed by the appell~tfauthority. Aggrieved
by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeals were filed which
came up before the Division Bench. An argument was canvassed on behalf
of the transferees of such lands that the lands in all these cases were granted
under Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960 and as it is not specifically provided under
· D. Rule 43-J that there shall be any restriction on alienation, the restriction
imposed was not valid or enforceable. The Division Bench of the High Court /
thought it fit to refer the matter to the Full Bench as certain conflicting
opinions were expressed by different Benches of the same High Court. The
relevant portion of the reference order was to the following effect:-
E "One of the important questions that arises for consideration in these
Writ Appeals is as to whether an Authority granting land under Rule
43-J of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 can impose
any condition at the time of making grant that the grantee, shall not
alienate the land for a period of 15 years when Rule 43-J do not
F provide for any such condition. A further question also arises on the .
effect of a condition imposed in the Saguvali chit by the Tahsildar that
the grantee shall not.alienate the land for a period of 15 years when
such condition was not imposed by the order of the Authority making
the grant." ·

G The Full Bench held that in all these cases the lands were allotted under
Rule 43-J and, therefore, there should not have been any condition restricting
the alienation by the grantees. The Fl!ll: Beh<:h also held that the conditions
stipulated in Rule 43-G were not applicable to the grants made under Rule 43-
J and, therefore, the conditions Imposed by the Tahsildar in the 'Saguvali chit'
H restricting the alienation of such lands by the grantee was not sustainable in
GUNT AIAH v. HAMBAMMA [BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 775
law. Aggrieved by the said decision, the State as well as the affected parties A
have filed these appeals.

We heard the appellant's Counsel and learned Counsel for the
respondents.

In order to appreciate the contentions urged before us by the parties B
on either side, it is necessary to go into some of the relevant provisions
contained in the Rules of 1960. These Rules of 1960 were intended to regulate
the allotment of the Government lands to certain category of persons. As
regards grant of lands, the Revenue Officers are given certain powers. The
Tahsildar to whom the power of Deputy Commissioner has been delegated C
may grant not exceeding two acres of rain-fed wet land or four acres of dry
land, provided the market value of such land including the value of the trees
thereon does not exceed three hundred rupees. The Assistant Commissioner
in-charge of the taluk is also given power to grant land not exceeding two
ac~es of land fit for garden cultivation or wet land with assured irrigation
facilities. Rule 43 provides the format of the appliCation form for grant of land D '
for cultivation. Rule 43-B states that no land with more than twenty-five
reserved trees in an acre shall be disposed of for cultivation except under the
special orders of Government. Rule 43-C and Rule 43-D give certain preference
to individual who is poor or bona fide agriculturist, political sufferer, etc. It
also provides that lands which are in <;ontrol of the Revenue Department may E.
be leased out to the schools, colleges and the training institutions and also
to farming societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act. Rule 43-E says that the lands available for disposal in a village shall be
reserved, for grant to different categories of persons eligible for such grant,
and where a land available for disposal in any village is less than ten acres,
the entire lands available shall be reserved for grant to applicants belonging F
to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are ordinarily resident in
the village. Where the extent of land available for disposal in a village is more
than ten acres, a minimum of ten acres shall be reserved for grant to applicants
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Rule 43-F prescribes
the order of priority and the extent of land to be granted. Marginal note to G
Rule 43-G says that the grant of land under the preceding rules shall be
subject to certain conditions. Section 43-G reads as follows:-

43-G Grant of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the
following conditions. (1) In the case of grant of lands to applicants
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A other applicants, who are unable to pay the occupancy price on
account of poverty, the occupancy price may be waived up to rupees
·two hundred and the balance recovered in three annual instalments.

(2) In the case of grant of land to applicants who are ex-servicemen
the occupancy price shall be waived up to the extent awarded by
B Government under the Military Concession Rules.

(3) In the case of grant of land free of occupancy. price, the grant shall
be subject to the condition that the grantee shall pay contribution or
betterment levy in respect of the land and the value of trees standing
of the land.
c
(4) Where the grant is made free of cost, or is made at a p*e which
is less than the full market value, the grant shall be subject to the
condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period offifteen
years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land, after
the grant:
D
Provided that such land may be alienated with the previous
sanction of the Government and subject to such conditions as the
Government may specify, if the Government is of the opinion that in
the circumstances of any case, it is just and r.easohable to permit such '
E alienation either for purposes of acquiring some other land or for any
other purpose:

Provided further that nothing in this clause shall apply to:

(a) the alienation of any land in favour of the State Government or Co-
F operative Society as security for loans obtained for improvement of
the land or for buying cattle or agricultural implements for the
cultivation of the land, or alienation of any land in favour of the
Indian Coffee Board as security for loans advanced by the Indian
Coffee Board under the Coffee Development Plan;

G (b) the leasing of any land by a person who is a widow, a minor or
who is subject to physical or mental disability or who is a serving
member of the armed forces.

(5) The grantee shall cultivate the land personally.

H
GUNTAIAH v. HAMBAMMA [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 777
(6) The land shall be brought under cultivation within two years from A ·-
the date of the grantee taking possession of the land.

(7) The grant is liable to be terminated [by the Divisional Commissioner
or the State Government] and the land resumed if any of the aforesaid
conditions is not fulfilled, and on such resumption the land shall vest
in Government free from all encumbrances: B
Provided that no land shall be resumed under this clause except
after giving an_ opportunity to the _gran!ee or his successor in interest_ -
to sho~ cause why the grant should not be terminated' and the land
resumed."
c
Rule 43-J is a general clause empowering the authorities to grant land
to.the lessees to whom lease had been granted previously. It reads as follows:-

43-J Grant of land to persons to whom lands have been leased _I
,
temporarily. Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding D
rules of this Chapter, in the case of agricultural land leased by
competent authority to any person for purposes of cult.ivation at any
time before the commencement of _the Mysore Land. Revenue
(Amendment) Rules, 1960, if such land is _available for dis~osal and
if the conditions of the lease have been complied with, the land may
be granted to the lessee. E
The finding of the Full Bench of the Kamatak!l High Court is that if the
grant is made under Rule 43-J, there could not have been any condition
restricting the alienation and if at all there were any such conditions they are
null and void. This view has been taken for the reason that conditions
restricting alienations are given under clause (4) of Rule 43-G and these F
provisions would apply to grant of lands made under the preceding rules and
not apply to Rule 43-J which comes after Rule 43-G of the Rules of 1960. This
view ~as been taken based on the title/marginal note of Rule 43-G. The Full
Bench was also of the view that under Rule 43-J, it is not stated that there
shall be any conditions prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the court held that G
authorities were not empowered to impose any such_ conditions.

A careful scrutiny of the entire scheme of the rules relating to grant of
lease to landless persons would show that the finding of the Full Bench on
this issue is legally not sustainable. First of all, Rule 43-J is only a general
rule which says that the lands which have been given on lease for agricultural H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A purposes could be assigned to the lessees if they complied with the conditions
of lease. The title to the land primarily vests with the Government. The · ·
Government while granting title to the lessees, can impose any conditions
which are permissible under law. The land is being given to lessees either free
of cost or at a price which is less than the full market price. It is not an
outright sale made by the Government for full consideration. In all these
B cases, lands were given almost free of cost. The upset price of the land was
either fixed at Rs. 200-250 per acre and this Rs. 200 itself was waived and the
grantee was to remit only Rs. 50 per acre. Grantee was to execute "Saguvali
Chit" and it incorporated a condition prohibiting alienation for a period of 15
years. The history of the legislation also would show that the State of
C Kamat.aka has all along been giving lands to the· landless persons belonging
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes subject to the restriction on
alienation of such land.

Rule 43•J is a general provision which empowers the authorities to
invest ·the le"ssees with title of the land provided the lessees fulfilled the
'D conditions of lease. The High Court assumed that conditions of alienation are
not stated in Rule 43-J and therefore, the authorities were not empowered to
impose such conditions. Rule 43-J is only an enabling provision which permits
the competent government authorities to grant title to lessees. The Government
being the paramount title-holder is empowered to impose any condition which
E is not against the law and it is binding on the grantees. All these grants of
land are made under the general provisions of rules and Rule 43-J by itself
is not a provision by which grants are made. All the general provisions .of
the Rules of 1960 could be made applicable to such grant if the grant is made
at a priCe lesser than the market price, or is made free of cost.

F In the title to Rule 43-G, it is stated that the grants of lands under the
preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions. This title to the
rules as such cannot be taken as the key words to interpret Rule 43-G. They
have got the effect of only marginal notes. The marginal notes are not
considered as legitimate aid to construction of any section or rule. The side
notes are not considered as part of the Act. Lord Macnaghten .in a case
G decided by the Privy Council held that the marginal notes ca,nnot be referred
to for the purpose of construction. Lord Reid in Chandler v. D.P.P. [1964].
A.C. 763 said:" In my view, side note~ cannot be used as an aid to construction.
They are mere catchwords and I have never heard that an amendment to alter
a side note could be proposed in either House. So side notes cannot be said ·
H to be enacted in the same sense as the long title or any part of the body of
GUNTAIAH v. HAMBAMMA [BALAKRISHNAN, J.)

the. Act.» A
When the rule itself says that where the grant is made free of cost or
at a price which is less than the full market value, such grant shall be subject
to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years
from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land after the grant,
• such conditions coul_d be imposed on any grant made to the party. B
In any case, the High Court failed to take into account the clear language
employed in Section 4, according to which 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' shall be null and void (emphasis supplied). C
The violation of the terms of grant itself gives rise to the action under Section
4 read with Section 5. So long as the terms of the grant prohibiting transfer_
- are not opposed to any specific provision of law, they cannot be violated and
the transferee gets nci rights by virtue of such invalid transfer. That is the sum
and substance of Section·4 which has not_ been duly considered by the High
'; Court. · . • . D
I
Ii is also pertinent to note that the prohibition regarding alienation is
a iestrictive covenant binding on the grantee. The grantee is not challenging
ihat c~ndition. In all these proce~dings, challenge _is made by the third party
. who purchased the land from the grantee. The third party is not entitled to E"
say that the conditions· imposed by the grantor to the grantee were void. As
far as the contract of sale is 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
th~ violation of any statutory provisions but if the grant by itself specifically
says that there shall noi be any alienation by the grantee for a period of 15 F
· years, that is binding on the gr.itit~e so long as he does not challenge that
clause, more so when he purchased the land, inspite 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 a<\verting to Section 4 of the· Act 2
of 1979. These lands.were given to landless persons almost free of cost and G
. it was done as a social welf;,,e measure to improve the conditions of poor
. landless persons. When these lands. _.;ere purchased by third parties taking·
advantage of illiteracy and poverty of tlie grantees,- Act2 of 1979 w.S 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 a~d Ors. v. H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A State of Karnataka and Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 301:
.-
"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 time of the grant, a condition had been
imposed for protecting the interests of the original grantees in the
B 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 tenn in the
grant itself or by reason of any _law, rule .or regulation governing such
grant. It was undoubtedly open to the grantor at the time of granting
c 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. Except on the basis of such a condition the
grantor might not have made any such grant at all. T~e condition
;- imposed against the transfer for a particular period of such granted
lands which were granted essentially for the benefit of the grantees ·-
D cannot be said to constitute any unreasonable restriction. The granted
lands were not in the nature of properties acquired and held by the
grantees in the sense.of acquisition, or holding of property within the
meaning of Article l 9(l)(t) 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
E
on transfer of such granted lands for the specified period was an
essential tenn or condition on the basis of which the grant was made.
-It has to be pointed olit 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 enjoy the granted lands
F 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 education and general
backwardness, exploited by various persons who could and would
take advantage of the sad plight of these poor persons for depriving
G
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 the right of the grantees
to dispose of the granted lands. The imposition of such a condition

H
on prohibition in the very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and
-_,.
GUNTAIAH v. HAMBAMMA [BALAKRISHNAN , J. ] 781
legal." A
The conditions restricting alienation imposed by the authorities are
legally valid and the finding of the Full Bench to the contrary is not correct
and the impugned Judgment is thus not sustainable in law. The impugned
Judgment is_ set aside, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld
and these appeals are allowed. The authorities shall take appropriate steps B
pursuant to the order passed by the authorities under the Act 2 of 1979 within
a period of three months. There will be no order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed.