Holding

Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 are constitutionally valid, provided they are limited to transfers where the transferee's title was still voidable at the Act's commencement.

Summary

The petitioners, who had purchased lands originally granted by the State of Karnataka to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, challenged the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, alleging that sections 4 and 5 violated Articles 19(1)(f), 31, 31A and 14 of the Constitution and were discriminatory. The Supreme Court held that the Act is constitutionally valid, but must be read down so that it applies only to transfers where the transferee's title was still voidable at the date the Act commenced; transfers with perfected titles are outside its scope. The Court reasoned that the prohibition on transfer is a valid condition of the original grant, aimed at protecting weaker sections, and does not constitute an unreasonable restriction on property rights. The lack of an appeal provision in the original Act was cured by the 1984 amendment, removing any procedural infirmity. Consequently, the appeals and special leave petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Whether the same provisions infringe Articles 31 and 31A by depriving transferees of property rights.
Whether the Act amounts to unreasonable discrimination in violation of Article 14.
Whether the absence of a provision for appeal renders the Act unconstitutional.
Whether the Act should be read down to apply only to transfers where the title remains voidable at the commencement of the Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Scheduled CastesScheduled TribesLand transfer prohibitionConstitutional validityArticle 19(1)(f)Article 14DiscriminationResumption of landVoidable titleAppeal provision

Judgment

A 502
"
MANCHEGOWDA ETC.

v.
B STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC.

Apr.if 17, 1984

(P.N. BHAGWATf, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J

Karnataka Sched•led Castes and Schedu(ed Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) 'Act, 1978, ·sections 4 & 5. constitutipnaJ validity-Whether
the jro_hibition of transfer of granted land5 and_ ResumpiOon or, restitution
thereof without p·aymeni Of compensttion or providinti any appeal for. such
order:iofresumption violates. Art. 19 (/) (/), 31and3/A of the Co,nstitution-
D . Wheiher making such special provisions only with regard to. Scheduled Ciistes and '
Scheduled .Tribes to. the exclusion ~!persons belof!King to ~th_er communities,
violated Art~14- of the Constitution.

,The petitioners are purchasCrs of lands which, had been original1~
granted by the State to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes. Such lands -had been originally granted to persons beiorlging,_
E to Scheduled· Castes alld Scheduled Tribes Under the proviSons of
Law or on the basis .. of _rules or regulations governing such grant.
After· the passing of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibitiop of Transfer Of Ce£tain Lands A€t), 1978, notices have been
issued by the appropriate .authority tO the transferees of such lands to show
cause as to'\vhy the 'lands transferred' to them should not be resumed for
being restored to the original grantees br their legal heirs or for distributioD.
F. otherwise to the me~bers ·of .Scheduled Castes- and Scheduled Tribes iri. ·
aecorditnce with the· provlsions of the Statute, as the transfers iO: their
·ravp_ur .are in view of the provisionS of .the Act now nu11 and void. The ·
appellants, who were aggrieved by th~ said notices challenged the vires of the
Act. According- to them, ss. 4 & S of -the Act violated lhe provisions of
Arts 14, 19 · (1) (f), 31 and 31A of the Constitution. The High Court for
G reasons recorded in the Judgii1ent upheld the validity ot the Act ·and dis· .
•missed the, p'etitions. However,· the High Court granted certificates ,ui:ider
Arts. 132 & 133 of the Constitution and hence.the app_eals.
'
Dismissing the appe~ls, the Coui:t

B ·HELD:. I: I. Sections 4 .& S of the Karnataka Scheduled Castca
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfers of Certain }.ands) Act, 1978
is constituliona~Jy val_id~L510FJ · ·

•
,

~MANCHEoOWDA v. KARNATAKA 503

1 : 1. However, the prov1s1o~l of the Act must be read down and _ A
held that the Act will apply to transfers of grapted lands made in breach of
the condition_ imposing prohibition ori tfansfer. of granted lands only in
'those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable at
the. date of the commencement of the Act and had n9t Jost its defeasible
character at the d;i.te wjien ~he A:t c.1m~ into force. -Transferees Of granted
land having a p~rfected ~nd not~ void:J.ble title at the cOmmencement of the
B
Act must be held to be outside the pale cf the provisions of the Act. S: 4 Of
the -Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the
title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commence-
m.:nt of the.Act. Granied lands which had b~en transferred after the expiry
of the period _of prohibition ~o not come within the purView of
the Act·, an~ cannot be proceeded ag1inst under the provisions of this Act.
The' provisions o( the Act ·mak.! this position clear, as ~s .. 4· ~ 5 IJecome c
applicable only when grante& lan\ls. are transferred in bt{'ach of ihe condition
relating to.prohibition of such lands. Granted lands transferred before the
cominence111ent of the Act and not iP contraventio-n of prohibition On_ trans-
. f~r are clearly beyo.qd the scope and p:.irview of the Present Act. Also in
case where gfanted lands had been. tran.sferred · be for_~ the commencement
of the Act in violat'fon of_ the condition regarding prohibition on such
trartsfer and the transferee who- had initially 3.oquired only a voidable' D
·title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the grant'ed lands
bY prescription by long and continuous.enjoyment therofin accordance with
law Defore the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not
come wilhiii the purview of the present Act, as the title of such trinsferees to
the granted lands has beeri perfected before the commence:1nent oJ the ~ct.
Since at the tiate of the comm:encemen t of the Act the title of such transferees
bad ceasl!d to bs: voidable- by reason ~f acquisition of prescriptive rights on
account of long and continued user , for the requisite period, the title of such
transferees could ·not be rendered void by viJL.ue of the provisions of the Act
'Without violating the constitutional guarantee. [520D·H, 521A-CJ ·

1 : J. As the provisions of appeal has been incorporated by the
Amending Act which fecejveJ. the assent of the Governor ·on the 29th
February •. 1984 and first cam~ to -be published iit the Karnataka Gazette
Extraordinary on the 3rd day of March, 1984, the Deputy Comn1issioner to
' . whonl the appeal wiH be presented \vill n~ doubt take thfs fact into consi-
deration iil deci"ding the question of Iin1it&tion in reg;ird to any appbal which ·
n1ay 'be ftled agains_t an order-of the Assistant CommisS'ion~r; if .any appeal
is pf'!ferred within a period of three months from the date the amended
pi:ovision conferriilg the right of appeal caJ!le into force, the Deputy cOmmis- G
sioner taking int~_consideration the fact that a period of three n1onths has
been prescribed for preferri'n~ an appeal from the ddte of the order of the
Assistant Commissioner, may have no_ difficulty "in entertaining the appeal by
condoning the deaJy· under s. 5 of the.Lfmitation Act in tefms of the power
conferred o~ the DepUty Comn1issioner under the -said s. SA, -proVide~ the
Deputy Co~missioncr is satisfied that the appeal is otherwise niaintainable
alld the interest of justice rCquires that the.appeal should be entertained and
not be thrown:out on the ground of limitatiob. [521-D-G]
;[
•. ~ !
•
·-
.- .
.•

•. 'SM SUPREME CO!JRT REPORTS · [1981) 3 S.C.R.
.. ,,-:
A 1 : 4 It is no· dOubt true ·th.it before the .passing of the p;eseo. t A.Ct_.
· .any transf~r bf.granted l~nd in breiicli of ~he .cOlldition rClating·_to prohibitiOn
L -· · On such.trausfer wollld not have the ·effeCt of fenderin8: the ti:ansfer void. aii..d
Would _make'anY.such trailsfer onlY-vJidable. But the· St<ite,.consistently with
. ·the ?irectiVe · principleS- of th~ _COnstitulio~, .. bas··~ade it a Polic:r arid Yery .
·· · · · . rightly,, to -preserve,_ protect and pfomote the interest of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedllled Tribe:i which by and lafge form the wea'.kei alld pOOr.er seciiori1 of __
B the· people. in Ol;lC coufitry .. This may b~ said ·to. be the dcclared'pOtiCy or·
-the Siate au lithe p{Ov~sk:-ns seeking to nllliify such_· transfers is quite in keeping
With, the polic-y·_o(the State which may properly ·be regard~4 as·public policy for·
-rendering social and economic justice to these weaker· s~ctiOrls of the Socie.ty •
• - • • • • • 1" • .-· • _. • ·,:_ • • ~ • • • " • ·- ••

. \ in pursuanc~ -of this· policy, thC: Jegis.lature ~js. undoub.tedly" compeiem. to.
'paSs. an ..enact.ment -providing that transf~rs Of such granted lands will 'be void .
. C ..... anc1"not merely voidable fof prop.!rlY safl!guarding'and protecting the iD.terests of.
- the Scb.edu.led ·Castes ~an..!· S·::ned.ili;:d Tribei3 for whose beilefit onl> these l<inds
1
.1'
rui.d b .:en,g"ranted. · EVen ullder the Contra:t Ac!, any Contract whieh is oPP'osed
to public policy is rendered void. [512D·E, 513C·El." ·

·. 1 :· 5. ··Even· in t_he abs:nc"e of any s u~h· statil tory pr~viSions, the tranS~
fer of granted lands in .cJntraventiP1:1 of the terml of the g7ant cir in_brC:aCh of.
D · nY-laW, cule or regulat_ion covering such grant will clearly_ be voidable.and the·
a sum\)tlciO ~f · sqch ·gr~nted· lau.Js., aitl.'.:f.· _.avoid1Dg .. the 11'.oidab_le transferS_in
. :~cordance With law wiH b.;, p.:rmitt.::d., _Av..>idance of ··s~ch vo_idab~e t~ansJers_
· . • 0 d resumption of th.; gran~ed lands thr!>ugh· process of law is.bound to take
· ~- 3: e Ally. negiig~nc~- anJ delaY On the part o{tbe authoritiCs entitled to take
· ttID; ·n t~ avoi_d_ such transfers throUgh, apprOpriate lega_l process of law i>. bound
· aef:lOke time.'-: Ant"nt!gligence and~ dCaly ·on th·e part of the authorities entitled
r.
E to t~ke action,.. to avoid' such tr~ns~ers through app[Opriate legal" process .
~~r:resumption of su_ch grant maY .b.; further ill?-p~dipl:rltS._i~.th~ _matter of _
· ·"· g such· transfers and· resumption of possess1on ·of the granted lands •.
av 01 "m
PrOlonged \egal· procee_d1ngs
· · w1ll · _und.Ju b te di ! b e · preJU
• d"1c1a
' I to.· t h e ·interests of.
the ""memb.:rS' _of ihe Sche!Jul,;·d _Castes and Schedule~ Tribes fur whose benefit_
the granted lands ar'.; intenJcJ to b: resum~. As ~ran~fer~ of granted Jands '
i~ _Contrave nt!o.n of. the. terrlls of th~. grant or any ~~w, ~egulation or ru~e
0

.F · • n,, such grants can b~ legal_ly avo1ded~ap.d possession of sue~ ,lands c_an.
govern1 ""- - , t:· - •. · · "d'
-·~be recovered throug.h p~oc.:~s ·or law ~i~:!: -L_eg~slature. for the p~rp_o~.e of a~o1 t~g
, delay and "harassment Of j'.!rotracte~ hugaUOn _anQ in fUrthenng. l~S. object Of. •·
- ·Speedy .·re.stQratiOi:t. o.f these sranted lands t~- ~he_· me1:1~crs of the ~ea~e~ . ·
•. .- commUnities is p~r[~ctlY _: compe~en.t to ~ake ·suitable Ptov1sion !or resu~pucn
of· such granted lands Dy- stipulating in the enactment'_ that. t~aI?s~ers or such
G lands in . cOr.it~_av~ntion · ·_o.r _the ·~ern:.s _o_f ·th~. ~rant or ~ny regulauon_; rule or
---:<. Jaw regulating such grant wN._! be void. in. pro".1d1ng ~. ~u1tabl_e. pr~cedure_ con·~.
sistent with the principles of .__ natu~al_ JU~tlce f~r ac_h1e".1ng_ this _purpose w1th~ut
' ·. e io Prolonged.' litigation in Court ·ID •the larger interests or benefiung
0
~~: ;~:..bers of the Scheduled Casie~ and Schedulod Tribes. , [513£'-H; Sl4A·Pl
., 2.. 1. ·.. Any pefson. who .acquires:sUch granted land by transfl.!r from the~:.:. J
H ·.. · ; · I gr.an tee in b·reach of.- the condition relating to prohibition on su~h ·
ong1na · - ·b· · · d
. [ r. ust·n·c·essarily be presumed tO be aware Of the-proh1 ltlOn Impose
trans e m · "' . · ·· · · d b ·
On the tranS.rer of such·, granted land,. an·d tb~y cannot be cons1dere to ea
,• I
\
I
i ..
MANCHEGOWDA v, KARNAfAI{A sos
hon a fide ~a~cbaSer for valUe ;'and ev~-rY· such. tr~nsf~~ee. acquire~ tri
-his k.llo...y· .
·A
. 1Cdge only-a vo-idable title to the. grant~d- ti11d. _Th~ ~it le acquired by such tradsfet ·
. is defeasibie and is Iiable·t·o be defeated by an aPprop_riate action.taken iri this
regard. _-If the Legislatllre Und:r .suCh circ.ums"tances ·seek to inteivene ~n ·t~~
inter"ests Or these W.!akef sectioD..s ·Of. ~he-· Community anJ_ choose to substitute
a sPecdieS and. chiJptr methoi 'orr2cpveri_ of th:sc granted land!.· which were
.otherwise.- liable 'to .be resu411ed. through J:gal process~ it caO.no_t. be said that
any veSted_.right~~ of th~ tiaiisf!ree~ ire alfecfed. Transreiees· .or' granted lao~s
- with full knOwledgC of. the legal position that the· trans.fers made in their favour
in contravcUtion of- the _terins Qf grant or any, law. rule_ or_ regulation·
go~rnirig such- gral)i:. are li~ble to be def~aied in Ia~. canrioi ·and do not h<l;ye·
in law or equity; agenuine or feat .grieVance that the"ir defeiisibte titt~ in·· su,ch .
gfallted lands· so -tranSferrCd iS, ill fact, bein3 defeated . and they • afe_ b::ing _\
. di$pOssessed ·_ Or ~uCh · 1ands Jrom -whiCh they were·. in law -Hable-· ·to be
.. d.ispossessod by.process Of law, [S.14F-H, s.LSA·C]. .. .
. c·
..
·, . ·., • 2 :· 2. ·. The position. will, ho--'·evir, be som~whit different where the . ·.
· ···. transferees' haVe acquirCd Such granted _lands not in violation of any term of the
.·. - ~int·or' any law regUlaOrig such grant as a.tsO where :any transferee who maY·
,. haye acqulrCd-a defeasible titlC in·sUchgranted. lands by the transf~r-ther~of in'
' coi:itravention of the terfils "or the· grant_ or apy_ law regulating· stich grant -- . q)
_has perf:cted his litte by pr:s~~iptfo~ of time or i;:ithe[~ise. [~lSC-D] :. · , -.. .
. . -. .... .-·. -. . ' . ' . , ·. .· ··:· ·.-· . .
.2 o 3~ But where the 1transferee acquires only a dcfeasible title liable to be
defeated in accord.in.cc with law,. avoida.nce o( such d,feasible- title Wh.ich still.
. remains liable to bt defe;ited in accorda°-'e with law_ at. the date of commence·
nient- of ·the, Act and recovery of thC posstssion of such granted 1and o·n the · :E
... ·basis of the provisiOns Contained in'Ss. 4 & 5 of the Act- -cannoi be said to be. ·'
coriStitutionally inv.1.tid arid such a pr0Visi9n cannot be termed as Uncorisci9na- ..
ble_,.unjust aµd a_rbitiai:y. [.5150:.E],_ · · ·
-, '·.·

. 3: C Gr~nted lands 'were.. intended. f~r the benefit ~nd enjoyment of
,_the ori_ginal &ran tees whO h1ppen' ~to '"betoO.g ~ t~ thC.;SchCduled oistes'an·d ·
""' . Scheduled ·.Tribes.•. The. condition·.'. impo<ied .againSt ··the tiansfer fof a Parti-
cular period of such gradted land's· which : wefe: 'grallted essen.tialfy_ for the:
'F .
I •
benefit Of the grantees c3nnot be-said to constitute ally unreasonable restric-. .
. . tion. The granted 'lands wer~ nOt _in the nature o~ proP~rties acquired 3.:0d ..
heid by the i;;r,antee~ ~n the Sense of a·cquisitio_n, or_ hOtding ~r P.roPei-t;r •within , ··.
the meaning .of Art •. 19 ~ ( lf (fJ of the -Constitution. ·.It was a· -case' of· a
'graoi by- t_he ow Der· of the. lafi~ -to the grantc·e for the possession "and enjoymetit .. ;G
Of thC gfanted I.ands by the. &ran.tees and the Prohibition ·on·trcirisfer of Such· .
• granted lands for the specified period was an "essential term·. or c'ondition on
the basis of"which the grant was mJde.-. ·The prohibition ·on .trinSfer was not·
for an indefinite· per-i¢d .or perpetual.: It 'was·_onty for ·a pa_tticular per10d,-· the-:'" .'fi.
·obji:ct- being that the grantees shou_1d. enjoy the gtanted lands them'lelves at .
least for the period d~ring. which the. pr'ohibition_ was to remain operative.
Persons belonging to scheduled Castes an.d scheduled tribes:- to whom the landS -:. · _-B
were granted were,_ because of their poverty, lack of educ3.tion arid general back·
wardness,
. .
exi,iloited }'i various persohS.
.
W&O could and would . ..
take advantage Or·
'·
. }, '
$06 SUPREME COURT REPORTS' [19o4j 3 s.c;il.. '
.-
.A hon~ fide the. said plight or those poor persons for depriving them of th:eir lands.
The Imposi:ion ·9f the condition of prohibition on transfer for a pafticular
period could not,.- therefore, be con.sidercd. _to constitute any- unreasonable
i:estrictiol'l on the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted lands. The
imposttion Of such a condition pnprohibition ·in the very nature of the graD.t Was
perfectly valid and legal. [575G-H, 5HiA-B, E-FJ
3 : 2. rhe. transferees of the gr~nted lands from the original· grantees,
.B
acquir~d the lands improperly and illegally in Contravention of the condition
imposed o'n such transfers. Such transferees must have ·be.en aware and nlust
"'in any event be deemed to have been aware of the condition regarding the •
·.prohibition 90 transfer and they cannot be C<?nsideied to .be bona fide trans•
ferees for value. s·Uch ·persons acquired in·the granted lands only avoidable
title which was liable to b-: defeated and possession of such lai:J.ds cOulQ: be.
resumed from.such tr~nsferees. Such a person who only acqu'ires a defeasible
.c legal right cannot make "a grievance of any violation o,f Art, .19 (1) (f) of the
cOnstitufion, when the defe""sibie legal right is, in fact, defeated by appropriate ,_
legal action·· or b}'t· any suita_ble provision enacted in an Act passed "by the
co.inpetent legislature. Further .in most· ·cases such transferees have afier the
transfer, Which -is liable ~o be avoided in accord_ance With law, elljoy~d for a.
sufficiently tong period the benefits cf .,lands transferred to them before the
D lands could be recoveied from them Art. 1.9 (I) (f), therefore, did not invali· '
'. dates. 4 of the Act. [516G-H, 517A-BJ

3: 3. The right.or. property which a transferee acquires in the ~ted
Jantls, is _a d~feasibte·right and the-- transferee renders himself liable tp lose his
rigM or property at the instance of the granter. This kind of defeasible
right of the transferee in the g~a1l.ted lands cannot be considered io be ProPerty
.E as contemplated in art. 31 and 31A. The nature of the right of the tranfseree
in the gra1\ted lands on transfer ·.of such lands in breach of"the condition
• ·prOhibition _relating to -_such,-· transfer, the object of such grant and the terms
therefor, alsO the h\w governing·such grant~ and the object and the. scheme of
the pre~e:nts Act enacted for the benefit of the weaker _sectiorrs of our commu-
nity, clearly go to .indicat~ that there is in this case no deprivation of slich
· right or proRerty as may attract the provisions of Art.;31 and 31A of the Con·
F stitution. (517C-G)
With the enactment of the Act, the, voidabl~ rjght or title of the
transferee in the grant lands· l)eco·rnes void and the transferee is left with no
riglit or prop.erty in. th:: granted lands. The lands- which are sought to' be...~
recovered from t'hc- transferees of the granted lands are lands in.which the
,
transferees cease to, have any interest or- property. The effect of ttie:· provi-
sions contained in ss. 4 & s·-of the Act iS that the di.::f~asible right or interest
•
G
·" ·Of the transferees .in· the granted lands is defeated and the voidable tran-
~action is rendeied void. AS soon as such transferees are rendered void by
Virtue of the provisions of the Act transferee does not have any right in the
grauieci lands so transferred, and possesion is sought to be recovei~d of
Sqch lands in which .the transferees have lo.st_· their ·right and interest. TherC-
fore, the question cf acqUistio.p_ of any property by the State or any modifica-
tion_ or extiilguishmept of right of prope:rty does not realiy arise and Art. 3IA
carinot be applied. 'TheJefOre, there is no infringeme:nt of Aits~ 31.&.3JA
of the Constitution. [5180-H)
Mt-NCHBGOWDA V. KARNATAKA 501
4. The S)!:ial pr)visi·Jns m td! for the re;umption of granted lands .A
originally granted to t:" .m nb :rs of S:h,dJld Castes a~d Scheduled Tribes
and resoration -Of the same to the original grantees or their heifs and legal
.' representatives and' falling them to other m~mbers of these communities do
not' infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution. This Act has undoubtedly been
passed for the benefit of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
· Tribes· who are recognised as backward ·citizens and weaker sections in the
country; There cannot' be any manner- of doubt that persons belonging to B
Scheduled Castes aQ.d Sche4_uled Tribes can be considered to be separa"te and
distin<;:i classes particularly in thi;:: ,matteror Pre·servation and protection of
their economic and educational interests. In view of the peculiilr plight of
these two classes, the Constitution in~·Art. 15 (4) makes specific 'mention
. ' of these two classes and in Art 16 (4) speaks of backward class of citizens. One
of the directive princrples as contaihed in Art.· 46 of the Constitution enjoins ,
that "the State shall proinote with sPecial care.and educational and econOmic
interests of the weaker sections of the people .and in partiCular of the
Scheduled C:rstes and Scheduled Trib!;s ii\d shall protect them frqm social
jnjustici:: and all forms of exploitation." ·The object of this A_ct is 'to pfotect ·
and preserve the economic: intere·sts of persons belonging to ScP,edule Castes-and
Seheduled Tribes and to preve~_t their exploitation. For the purpqse of the present
Act, the-classification has a clear nexus to the object sought to be achieved. D
. . [519 A-F)
5. It 'is true there was no provision for any appeal ita · the original
'>.. ~ct. It may bo that such a provision wls not ofigina1ly made, as the
Legislature 'might have felt that providing for ai:i appeal -'Yould unnecessarily
prOlong the proceedings and might, defeat the purpose of the act. However,
the Karnataka ·Scheduled · casteS and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition . of
Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amend1nent) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act Ill of E
1984) now provides a suitable provision for appeal against an order of the
Assistant Commissioner under s. 5A. [519G·H, 5!0A]
· C1viL A"PPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil 1ppeal Nos. 3U6
cand2608 of 1983 etc. etc.'
(From the ,Judgments and Orders dated 30th .September,
1982 & 5th October, 1981 of the Karnataka Hig,h Court in Writ F
Petition Nos. 12680 and 12681/1979.etc. etc.
For the Appellants/Petitioners.
U.R. La/it Shanti Bhushan, B.P. Singh •. S.N. Kacker, S.L.
Benadikar' and M/s. PR Ramassesh, KR Nagaraja; B.P. Singh, M.
'-Veerappa, N. Nettar & K.N. Bhat, C.R. Soma Sekharan, TVS
.:t.farasimhu/u, Vineet Kumar, S., Laxminarasu, Swaraj Kaushal, G
Mukul Mudgal, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, R. Satish, C.K. Ratnaparkhi, S.K.
! •
Mehta, SSJavali, S.N. Bhat, Naunit Lal, Kai/ash Vasdev, Ms.
i.clita Kohli, Manoj Swarup, Ashok Benadikar, AG Ratnaparkhi
For the Respondents :
R.P. Bhat, S.N, Kacker, L.N. Sinha~Swaraj Kaushal, Girish
H
<;hander a11d Miss A. Subhilshini. •
The Judgment of the C~urt was delivered by
SUPREME COURT REP OR l'S . [1984] 3 s.c.ll.
. .
AMARENORA NATH SEN, J. The question for 'considera.tiQn
_in Civi!'Appeal No. 3116 of 1983 by certificate grahted by tile
High Court is, whe"ther the Karnataka Sched11led Castes and
Seheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of b.revity)
is constitutionally valid or not.
The writ petition oµt of which this· appeal arises -. was filed
in the High Court along with a number of other writ petitions filed
·by various other parties challenging the validity . of th~ Act. The
High C~urt for reasqns recorded in the judgment nph~fd. the
validity of the Act and dismissed this ·writ petition _and also the
other writ 'petitions: The High Court granted certificate ilnder
Arts.)32 and 133 of the C6nstitution an1 this appeal has' been~
filed with the certificate granted by the High Court. As 'the
identical question is involved in all these appeals and special
leave petitions, this judgment will also di~pose of all the appeals·
and special leave petitions. . ·
In as _much as. the vires ~f the Act has been challenged
ess'entially on legal grounds, it docs not' become necessary for' •118
to set out the facts at any great length. The broad facts cominon
to: all wri_t petitions which were filed in the High Court may,
however, be briefly noted. The· Petiiioners are purchasers .of
E lands which bad been originally granted. by the State to persons .
· belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled ._Tribes. Such lands
had been originally granted .to persons belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the :provisions of Law ot on '.the
• basis of rules or regulations governing such grafit. After the
passing of the .Act _in question notices hav~ been issued b;,"the
appropriate authority to the _transferees of ·such lands to llhow
cause as to why the lands transferred to then should not be
resumed for being restored to the original grantees -or their legal
heirs or for disiribution otherwise to the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the provisions of
· the Statute, as the transfers in their favour are in view of.th.e
provisions of the Act nqw null and void.
Before we proceed to deal with the various -contentions railed
0 'n behalf of the· a:ppellant and the other petitioners in the other
writ pejjtions, .it would be appropriate to set 0ut the relevant
provisions of the A ct. - ·
Granted land is defin~d in · S. ~(b) of the mean "any land
iiranted by the Government to a, person 'belonging to any of the
'
MANCHEGOWDAy, KARNATAKA (A.N. Sen, J.) 509
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land A
allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the
time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceiling
or abolition of Inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices
or rights and the word "granted shall be construed· accordingly". #

• ~-
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act read as follows_: .
"S. 4. Prohibition. of transfer of granted land-(1) Notwith-
standing anything in ·any law, agreement, contract or
instrument, any· transfer of granted land made either
before or after the commencement of this Act, in contra-
Jb

vention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law
,,roviding for such grant, or sub-section (21 shall. he. null c
· and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall
• he conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such
transfer.
(2) 'No person shall, after jbe commencement of this
Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land D
without the previous permission' of the Government.
(3) The provisions of suh'section (I) and (2) ·shall
. apply also to the sale of any land in execution qf a decree
or order of a civil Court or any award or order. of any
other authority.
S. 5. Resumption or restitution of granted lan_ds ...:...
(1) Where, on application by any interesed person or on
information given in writing by any per;on or su'o motu,
and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assis-
tant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any
granted land is null and void under sub-section ·(I) of r
Section 4, he may.-
(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 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 be deemed, to have vested in the government free
fr<;>m all enum~rances, The Government may grant sue~

' .
SIO SUP!\EMB COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S;C.R. ~
'
...
.A .land io a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with therules relating
to grant of land. ·
(2) Any order passed" under sub-section (I) shall be

•B' finai"and shall not be questioned in any court of law and
no injunction .shall be granted by any court in res{lect of
·any proce'eding taken or about to be taken by the Assis·
tant Commis.Sioner· in_ purswmce of any power conferr.ed
by or under this Act.
' (3) For the purposes of this sectio11, where any gran·
ted land is in the possession ofa person, other than the ' '
original grantee or bis .legal heir, it shall be presume<>,
until _ihe contrary is proved, that such person has acquired
the land by a transfer which is null and void under the
provisions of sub:section (!). of section 4.
Th~ valiility of the Act has been challenged mainly because
of the provisio11s contained in ss. 4 and 5 of the Act which purport
D· to declare transfers of 'granteq 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 null and
void and confer powers on the authority to take .possession of such
land after evicting all' persons in possession thereof and to restore
:E . such lands to the orfginal grantee or his legal heirs and where it
is not reasonably practicable lo so re~tore the land to a person
belonging to the Schedule.ct Castes o"r Scheduled Tribes in accor-
dance with the rules relating to the grant bf such land. It may
be noted that the validity of the Act in so. far as it· imposes prohi-
bition on transfer of granted land after the commencement of the
F ': Act has not been challenged and the principal o~jection to the
validity of the Act is taken because of the provisions in th~ Act
seeking to nullify the tranfers of granted lands• effected before the
commencement of the Act.
The main grounds on which the validity of the Act has been
. challenged are :
G'•.: L Granted lands which had been transferred by the
gran~e in contravention of the prohibition ·imposed
on the transfer of any granted land under the terms
of the grant, under the" rules relating to such grant
or under anY law governing such grant, renders the
tran.sfer voidable and not void and it is not permi-
ssible to nullify such transfers and tq ~~clare the111- ~
void by any provisions of the Act;

•
• MllNCHEGOWDA v. KA_RNATAKA (A.N. Sen, J.) Sil

2. The _power conferred on the authority to recover A·
· possession of the granted land on the basis ·of the
provisions contained in the Act defeating the vested
rights of ,the purchasers who have acquired such lands
bona fide for consideration and have been in enjoy-
ment and possession thereof for years is unconscion- B
able unjust and invalid :

3. ·Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act which empower the authority
to· take ·possession bf the granted lands without pay-
ment of any compensation · are violative of Art.

•
19(l)(f) of the Constitution. c
"
_4. Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act contravene Art. 31 and the.
second proviso of cl. (I) of Art. 3.IA of the Consti-
tution· and are, therefore, void.

5. Invalidation of tra)lsfers of land granted to persons
.belonging. to only scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes and resumption of only such granted lands
are discriminatory and they infringe Art. 14 of the
Constitution.

E
It may be qoted that these very grounds were urged before
the High Court. . The High Court hls carefully considered all the ·
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants who were the
petitioners in the writ petitions filed before it. The High Court
in its judgment has referred to the relevant rules governing the
grant and . has also discussed the v_arious decisions w1!ich were F
cited before it. The High Court for reasons stated in tlie jugdment
negatived all the·contentions and upheld the validity of the Act.
We may mention that in addition to the aforesaid grounds a
further ground has a!so been .mgefi;,before us and the said ground
is that as the ·Act m queshon does not provide for an appeal
. against the order of th_e competent authority, the Act should be G
held to. be unreasonable,. ·unjust and unconscionable and should,
therefore, be struck down .

.Before w~ proceed to examine the contentions..iaisecl before
us, it will be appropriate to refer to the objects and reasons for
H.
the passing of th'is p'articular ena1;tment. The objects and reason~
flUl as follows ;
--~------

512 - .. ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS . ' .:. [1:9S4j 3 S.C,R•.·.·

"The non-alienatioO: cla~s·e contained in the exis.: •.:1
.. Land Grant Rules and the provisions for conc~IE:tion .;, .
. J"
' grants where the land fs .alienated in ccntravcnfa n of the
above ·said pr?vision: are found not su.flicient tc} help
. 'the 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes grantees. · ·
'·· ·whose. ignorance and poverty. _hav.e been expioite.d by··
persons. belon'ging_ to the afilucnt and powerful· section·s · · ·
to.obtain ·sales or mortgages either for· a. nominal consi-·
'\ :
.. deration or for· no consideraiion ·at all and ·.they have ·
become the-victims of circumstances .._ To.fulfill ·the pur- ·
pose of the grant, the land even i.f it ;iias' been alienated, .
·c should be-restored to the origin_al grantee. or his heirs.
-··. .

. . Th~ Government .of ·India bas·· al;o bee~ urgi~g the
State Governirlent .for enactipg _.alegislation to prevent
... alienation oflands granted to Scheduled Castes and Sche- .
D ·. duled Tribe~ by .Government orithe_ lines ofthe'model.
· legislation ·prepared by· _it and cjrciilated to .the . State .·
GoverD.ment". · · '· ·

- It is no doubt trl.le that before th~ passing of .the prese~t A~t ··.
E · ·any transfer of granted land iii brea~h of the co~ditfon relating to _.
. prohibition on such transfe~ would not. have the "effect of rendering .·
the transfer 'void and would make any. such transfer only voidable. . . ' r
. The present.Act seeks to introduce a change in the legal position . . .
The prohibition oi;. transfer.of granted land h~d been imposed by · ·
law, rules or. regulations ' governing'. such grant or_ by -the terms ..
F. of the grant ... The relevant provisions · imposing such· P!ohibition
: by rules, 'reguldions and laws have been. referred to in the judg-
.. ment ~f the High Court; 1( is quite clear that the ~cindition
.-
, regarding proh}bition of transfer of· grantee! land had been intro-· -~
.. du_ced iri the interest of the grantees for the purposes of upkeep of '
the grants a_nd for preventing the economically dominant sections of.
·_·.the coinniunity from depriving the grantees wlio belong to the w~ak.er . ·.
sections o(the people"oftheir enjoyment and po'ssessiori of these Ian_ds ·
and for sa(egua~ding their interests against any exploitation by the
richer 'sections in regard to .the . enjoyment. an~ .possession of these
. lands granted essentially ·for their . benefit, As· the Statement of •
Objects ·and Reasons indicates, · this ._ rrohibition oi:i 'transfer of . · · .f..
. gianted ; iand has ·. noi . proved· to l:e a sufficiently strong . safe-.
. guard in t!ie matter of preserving grants in the hands of the grante~·
.. --_ . -. . +-.-.• • • _. . -. ,_ .·•·. , . • .,,,

.." .. -~.

·'
.. .. MA~;C'.IIEG.OWDA v. KARNATAKA (A.N: Sen: J.) $13
.. .be!on;;ing b t!{e Scheduied Castes and.' Scheduled Tribes ; and .in ,
'!iolation of the prohibition on . t~ansfer of the granted land, irans~.
fers of such lands on a large scale · to the serious detriment of the
interests of these ·poorer sections of the people belonging to the .
Scheduled Castes and Sch~duled Tribes had taken pface. In view ·
ofthis unfortunate. experience the Legislaiure in its wisqom and .
r - in pursuance of its declared policy of· safeguarding, protecting and · . B
.. improving the conditions of these w·eaker . sections of the commu-
. nity;tho'ught it fit to bring about this. change in the !egalposition ·
by providing that any such .. transfer. except in ierms of the provi-
sions of the Act will be null . and ·void and not merely voidable •. ·.
Th~ Legislature no ·doubt is perfectly competent in pursuance of· c
the aforesaid policy to provide· that such transactions will be nulr
and void and nofmer~ly voidable. :Even· undei the Contract Act
any contract which is opposed to' public policy. in rendered void.
' .
The State,consistently with .the· directive princjples cf.the <;:onsti:
.. tution, has made it a policy. and. very rightly, to Neserve, protect
arid promote the interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled .
'.Tribes which by and large form the: weaker .and poorer sectio~s of
the people in our country. ·This may be said .to be the de~lared
policy of the State·.· and the. provision . seeking to nullify . such
transfers is ·quite in keeping with the policy ·of the State which may.
.\· properly be regarded as public policy. for . rendering social and
economic justice to..these weaker sections of the soCiety. · · E
. . "- . .- .·' . . .

.
~ . in pursu~rice of this policy, the· Legislature is undoubtedly . ·
'
!
competent to pass. an enactment providing thattransfers of such
granted lands will be void. and ·not merely voidable for properly F
........, safegiiarding and protecting the foter~sis of the Scheduled Castes
··and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit only these lands had be~n
I
gtanted; ·,Even in the. absence of any such .statutory provisions, the·
·transfer cir granted lands in contravention of the terms of the· grant
. or in breach of any law, rule or regulation c·overing such grant will ..
•. G
·clearly be voidable and the resum.ption of such granted lands .after
. avoiding the voidable transfers in accordance with.' law . will be·
'. ··permitted. Avoidance oC:such voidable transfers and resumption
·"' · cf the• gr~nted lands. ih;o~gh process of_ law is boUnd to take·_tim~.
Any negligen.ce and delay on· the part of the authorities entitled to.
··take action to ·avoid such transfers through appropriate legal process ·H·
for resumption of such grant may be further ·impediments in the
111atter'of llVOiding such ttansfers and· rernrnption ofpossessfon of
.- .

¥ ;•· •

SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1984] 3 S.C.R. ., ...

the granted lands. ·Prolonged iega\ proceedings wii1-u~doubtedly I"
be prejudicial to the foterests ·of ,th·.; members or' the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe for whose.benefit the granfod .lands are.· .
. · intended to be resumed. As-transfers of granted lands in contra- . :.
vention of the terms of the grant or any law, regulation :or rule
governing such grants car{ be legally avoided and possession of such ..• .
B
lands can be recovered through process oflaw, it must be hel_d tliat · · ·:r\
. the .Legislature i'or the purpose of avoiding delay. and hairassment .
of. protracted litigation and .in furthering its object of speedy
res·toration· of tliese granted lands to the members · of the weaker
..:ommunities is perfectly: ~cimpetent to.make .suitabl~ provision for ;
c ·resumption of su~h granted lands by.· stipulatiqg fo- the enactment
that transfers of such'. land$ i~ .contravention of . the .terms of the
. grant or any regulation, rule or. law regulating such' grant will be _·y
vo_id and· in. providing. a suitable. procedure consistent with the
principles of natural justice for achieving this purpose' without ·· · · ~
. recourse to prolonged litigation .iri Court in· the' larger interests of
D benefiting tlie members ·of .the Scheduled Castes: and Scheduled
'Tdbes. '·· .·
... ' ...
. , . We iny note that the cowpetence',of the legislature to declare
any transfer of granted land in contravention of the terms. of grant '.·
of snch land ii~ any rule; regulation or law providing for sucbgra nt .
E or without ihe previous permission of the _Government iii case I '·
r
of transfers after the pass.ing. of .the Act bas not been .seriously
disputed and cannot possibl.Y be disputed. . .. .
·;. What h~s been str~ngly urged before us ii that'the.provisions ·... -.
corttained in s. 4 in. so far as the 'same seek to nullify transfers - . ~

effected before the Act had coine into force, are invalid. · ...
•,.
'·
. Any person who a~quires such grant~d lalld by ira~sfer fro~ . ·. ·"'
. 'the original grantee in breach of the condition ~elating to prohibi- :
ti on bn such transfer musi nec~~sarily be . presumed 'to be: aware of
.the prohibition imposed on the transfer of sucli granted land. Any-
G .bcdy who acquires· such' granted . land ,in ;contra-verition . o(the
prohibition relating to transfer of such': granted land cannot be '
.considered to be a bona fide purchaser for . value: and·. every such. ,, ,
transferee acquires to his knowledge· "niy .a voidable title fo the /'
. granted land;' .The title a~quired' by such tr~nsfer is defeasible. and .
. is liable to. be defeated by an appropriate. action taken in thfa
H
'regard; · If the Legislat~re >under'· ~uch ~ircullistarices ·seek· to ·
· intervene· in the interests of these weaker sections of the cc;>mmunity, · .•
•
•

MANCHEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA (A.N. Sen J.) 515

·and choose to substitute a speedier and cheaper .method of recovery A
of these granted' lands which were otherwise liable to be l'esmned
through leg_al process, it cannot, in our opinion, be said that any
vested rig.hts of the transferees .are affected. Transferees of.granted
. l~nds with full kno"lledge of the legal position that the transfers
}. made in .their favour 'in contravention of th.e terms of grant·
B
or any law, rule or regulation .governing suoh grant are
liable to be defeated in law, cannot and do not have in law .or ·
equity, a genuine or real grievance that their defeasible title in such
• granted lands so transferred is, in fact, being defeated and they are
being dispossessed of such lands from which they were in .law liable
to be dispossessed by process of law. The position will however, c
be somewhat different where the transferees have acquired such
granted lands nQt in violation 'of any term of th~ grant or any law
· regulating such grant as also where any transfer~e who may h.ave
acquired a defeasible title in such · graated lands by tjie transfer
ther~of in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law
•
regulating such grant has perfected his title by j1rescription oftime o· ....
or otherwise. We shall consider such cases later on. But where
the transferee acquire~ only a de(easible title liable to be defeated
in accorclanee with law, avoidance of such defeasible title iwhich
still : remains liable to be defeated in accordance . with law
at the date of commencement of the Act and recovery of possession
E
of such grante.d Jarid on the basis of the provisions contained in
s. 4 ands .. 5 of the Act.cannot be said to be constitutionally invalid
and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionable, unjust
·and arbitrary. The first two contention ra-ised on behalf of the
petitioners are, therefore, over-ruled. ·
F
The next contention ·that Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act empowering
the authority to take possession. of the granted lands without
· payment of any compensation are violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the
Constitution is without.any merii. Art . .19(1)(f) which was in force
at the relevant time provided that all dtizens shall have the right
"to acquire, holcl and dispose of property." G
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 miginal
grantees in th~ granted lands by restricting the transfer of the same. H
The condition regarding the prohibitiop on transfer of such granted
)ands for a.specified per(ql),.w:1s i~posed b~ virtue of the specific
.
.. ' '

. ·. 516. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1984] 3 s.C.R •
A . 'term in the grant itself or by r'eas~n of any law, rule o;· regulation . ·'
governing such g;ant. It' ·was undoulitedly ·open to ihe grantor. at · ·
.. the time of granting lands. to. the original grantees to stipulate stich
· . 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 granicir might not have made any .
B .such grant at all ...The condition iin!losed against the transfer fora . ·
particular. ·period of such granted·· lands which were gra~ted
essentially for the benefit of the grantees cannot be said 'ta ·
'constitute ,any unreasonable restriction. The .granted lands.were
. not in the nature of properties acquired and held by the grantees in . f.

c the sense o(acqi;isition~ or holding of property within ·the ineaning ·
of Art. 19(1)(£) 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 lands for the specified.· period was an essential term
or cpndition
•
on; the
'• -
basis
•, . I
of· which the :grant was. made.
' .
It has to "
D be pointea out that the prohibition on transfer was pot for ·aii·
·indefinite period oi perpetual. It was onlyfor a particuiar period, .
the object being that .the graniees should enjoy the granted Jaiids · :_·
· themseI-.es at least~for the period during which the. prohibition was ·
tci remain operative .. Experienc'e had shown that persons'belonging
E
to scheduled° castes and scheduled ·tribes· to v.hom the lands were
granted were: because 'or their' poverty' lack of. e'ducation ·arid.
r
general backwardness, exploited by various persons 'who. cou14' and
would. take advanlage .of the sad plight. of these poqr persons for.
depriving them of their lands. The imposition of the condition of
. prohibition on transfer for a particular period could.not; therefore, .
F .be considered• to. constitute .any unreasonable restriction on' the
·right of the grantees tci :dispose of the granted )ands. The impositio~· · •
0

-of such' a condition on prohibltion in the·very nature of the grant· .r
. was perfectly valid andolegal. · ·
·.Th~ transferees of th·; granted· ,lands from the origi~ai.:· ·
grantees, acquired the ·lands improperly _and illegally in. contta-
G vention of. the conditio.n imposed - on such _transfers. ·Such
transfe;ees must have been aware and must in any event be deemed·
to have been aware of the· condition . regarding the prqhi\>itioli on · : . '
}
transfer and they can~oi be consider~d to be bona fide ·transferees .·
· for value. Such persons· acquired ,in the granted• lands only a r
. '

H voidable .title which was liable to be. defeated. and possession of ·
such lands could be resumed from such trnrisfer~es. Such.a person
·.who only acquires a defeasible leg; I right cannqt II1a~e a. grievanc~
•
MANCiiEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA (A.N. Sen, J.J 511
) ~
of any. violation •of Art. 19( I )(f) of the Constitution, when the A
defeasible ·legal right is, in fact, defeated by appropriate legal
action or by any suitable - provision enacted in an Act
. passed by the competent legislature. .It· may further be noted
·that in most cases such transferees have after the trans(fr, whichis
liable to be avoided· in accordance with law,· enjoyed for a
B
:Sufficiently long period. the benefits of lands transferred to them
before the fands could be recovered from them. Art. 19(1J(f),
therefore, did not invalidate S. 4 of tlie Act.
We have earli~r noticed that the title which is acquired by
by a transferee in the t;ranted lands, transferred ill contravention
• of the prohibition against the transfer of the granted. lands, is a c
voidable.title which in law is liable to be defeated through appro-
priate· action and possession of ;uch gra11ted lands transferred in.
breach of the condition of prohibition· could be recovered by the
grantor. The right or. property which a transferee acquires in the
granted lands, is .a defeasible right and the .transferee renders.
himself liable to lose his right or prnperty ·at the instance of the
granior, We have further ob.served that by the enactment of this
Act and particularly s, 4 ands. 5 thereof the Legislature is see-
king to defeat the defeasible right o"f the transferee in such lands
without the process of. a prolonged legal action with a view fo
· speedy resumption of such granted lands for. distribution thereof E.
the" otiginal grantee or their legal representatives and in their
absence to other members of the Scheduled.Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Communities. Jn our opinion; this ·kind of defeasible
right of .the transferee in the granted lands cannot be considered
to be property as contell1plated in Art. 31 and 31-A .. The nature
of the right of the transferee in ·the granted land on transf~r of F
such lands. in breach of the ~ondit.ion of prohibition relating to
such transfer, the object of such grant and the terms thereof,
also the. !'aw governing such grants and the objeet and the scheme
of the present .Act. enacted for the benefit of weaker sections
of our community, clearly .go to indicate that there is in this case
G
nO" deprivation of ·such right or property as may attract. tlie
provisions of Arts. 31 and .3·1-A of the Constitution.
In the case of Amar Singh v.. Custodian, Evacuee Property,
Punjabl'l, this ~ourt while considering the provisions of A.dministra-
tipn of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (XXXI of 1950) and the
nature of right in the property allotted to a quasi-permanent H
(I) (1951) S,C.R, 801

'
Sl8 SU~REME COURT REPOJ.l.TS (1984) ~ S.<;.R.
;-._.
, T
iillottee held that the interests of a quasi-permanenl allottee did not
· constitute' property within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(f), ~l (I) and
31(2) of the Constitution. .This Court observed at p. 834:

"Learned counsel for' tM Petitioners has strenuosly
B urged . that .under the quasi-parmanent allotment scheme
. the allottee is entitled to a right to possession within the
limits' of the relevant notification and that such right to
possession is itself 'property'. That may .be so in. a sense.
But it does not affect th.e ·question whether it is property
so as to attract the protection of fu11damental rights
c under .\he Constitution. If the tot~lity of the bundle
of rights of the quasi-permanent allottee in the evacuee
land constituting an interest in such land, is not· property
entitled fo protection of fundamental rights, mere
posses&ion.ofthe land by virtue of 'such interest is not on
any higher footing"._ · . 'f
D •
With the enactment of the Act, · vpidable right or the t.itle
of the transferee in the granted lands· becomes· void and . the
transferee is left with 110 right or property· in .the granted lands.
The lands which are sought to be .recovered from the transferees ·
of the granted lands are lands in .which ·the transferees cease to
E 'have any interest or property. The effect of the provisions con-
tained in Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act is that the defeasible right or
interest of the transferees in the granted lands is defeated and .the
voidable transaction is rende.red void. We have earliar held that
it is c)e;rly open op·en to . the Legislature to declare void the
F t·ransfers of granted lands in . contravention ·of the condition of
prohibition OD' tra.1sfer. As soon as snch transfers are rend~red
void by virtue of the provisions of the Act, ~he : transferee
does not h.ave any right. in· the granted lands so 'tansferred,
and possession . is souiht to be recovered of. such lands· in
which the transferees hav! lost-their rigb.t ,ind interest Therefore, ·
the question of acquisition of· any property by the State or
any
: modification or extinguishment of right of property does not.
really arise and Art. 31-A cannot be applied. We are, the.refore,
of the opinion that there is· no infringement of-Ar.t' 31 and Art.· ,
Sl·A of the Constitution. We may further observe that this
.aspect has been carefully and: elaborately eonsidered by the
H learned Judges of the High Court while holding thµt Arts. 31 and
31-A !Ire not violated. • ·
MANCHEGOWDA V. KARNATAKA (A,N. Sen, J.) ' 519
•
The next contention urged is that Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act, are A
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as these sections
make special provisi~ns only with regard to S~heduled Castes and
Schedul.ed Tribes to the _exclu<ion of ·persons belonging to 'other.
Comi;nunities. This Act has undo,pbtedly been passed for the benefit
of membersof the Schedu!fd Castes and Scheduled Tribes who. are B
recognised as backward cifo:ens and weaker.sections in the country.·
There cannot be any manner of doubt that persons belonging to
I
\.; , Scheduled Castesand Schedulea 'tribes· can be considered to be
separate_ and distinct classes particularly in the matter of preser-
" vation and protectien:. of their economic and educational interests.
·. In view of the peculiar plight of these two classes, the Constitution c.
• in Art. ·15(4) make.s specific meritio.n of t!iese two classes and in Aft .
16(4) speaks of backward class of citizens. One of the directive
priiJ.Ciples as contained in Art. 46 of the Constitution enjoins ihat. · ·
"the State shall promote with specbl care the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the· people and in
particular ofthe Scheduled Castes and Schedu.led Tribes· and shall D
protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation."
The object of this Act is to protect and preserve the economic
interests of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schetluled
_Tribes and to prevent their exploitation. f'or ·the purpose ofthe
· preserit ·Act, the classification has clear nexus to the object
E
sought to' be achieved, We are, therefore, of the opini0n,
that special provisions made for the resumption of granted , lands;
originally ·granted to · the members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and resoration of .the same to the . original
grantees or their heirs and legal representatives and failing them '
to· other members of these ·communities do not infringe Art. 14 of
the Constitution.

The last contention raised is that the Act should be consider·
· ed to be unjust and unereasqnable as no provision has been made
for any app'eal against the order of the authority concerned. it is
true that there was no provision for any appeal in the original Act. · G
It may be that such a provision was not originally made, as the
Legislature might have felt that providings for .an appeal· would
unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and might defeat the purpose
of. the Act. '1n course of. the hearing, the. learned Counsel for the
State had however submitted that in the interest ofjustice a pro-
vision regarding appeal would be incorporated ill the Act by an·
~- p ~ropriate amendment of the Act It .has subsequently been
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R,
A
brought to our Qotice that by the Karnataka Scheduled Castes an~
.Scheduled Tribes (ProhibitiOn of Transfer of Certain LandSi
(Amendment) Act, 1984 (Kar,nr.taka Act 3 of 1984) which received
the asseI!t of the Goven1or on. the 29th day ofFebruary, i984 and
came ,to be published in the Karniitaka Gazette Extraodina ry on
B
the 3rd of March, .1984, a suitable provision·. for appeal against &n
or~er of the Assistant Commissioner has been made in S. 5A
which has b•en incorporated by the Amending . Act. We have had
some 'doubt whether lack <;>f provision for an appeal in an enact-
ment of this. kind would· have infected the Act with the tice of
} .
I \....

procedural un.reasonableness and would have.~ffected the Constltu• \
c
· tional validity of the Act.· As, however, a suitable provision for
an.appeal against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner has been •
made by the Amending Act, this question does not survive to
·require any further consideration and it d6es not become necessary
for us. to make any final pronouncement on it.
D
Though we have cgme to the conclusion that the Act is valid,
Yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted
lands which had heel) transferred.after the expiry of the period of
prohibition do not come within th.e purview of the Act, and cannot
be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions
E
of the Act make this position clear, as ss. 4 and 5 become applicable
only when granted lands are transferred. in 'breach of the col)dition
relating to prohibition. on transfer of such granted lands. Granted
lands transferred befote the 'commencement of the Act ~nd not in
contravention of prohibition on transfer: are clearly beyond the
F scope and purview of the present Act .. Also in case where grante~
lands had been transferred before the commencement of the Act
in violation ()f the condition regarding prohibition on such transfer
and the transferee who had initially acquired. only a voidable title
in such granted lands had perfected his ,title in the granted lands
by prescription by long .and continuous enjoyment thereof in
G accordance with law before the commencement of the Act, such
granted .lands would also not come within the purview of the
present Act, as the title of.snch·transferees· to the granted laqds has
been perfected before the commencement of th.e Act. Since at
"the .date. ·of the commencement of the Act the title· of.such trans~ ,
ferees had ceased to be voidable by reason of acquisition of
H
prescriptive rights on account of long and continued user for the

.
MANC!lEGOWDA v. k~RNATAKA (A. IV. Sen, J.) Sii
• .. I .

requisite period, the title of such transferees could no.t be renden;d A
void by virtue of the provisions of the Act without violating the
constitutional guarantee. We rims!, therefore, re.ad down the
provisions of the Act by holding that the Act will apply to transfers
of granted lands made in breach of the condition imposing prohibi-
tion on transfer of granted lands only in tl)Ose cases where the B
title acquired by the transferee was still voidable'at the date of the
commencement of the Act and had not lo;t its defeasib!e character
at the date. when the Act came into force: Transferees of granted
lands having a perfected and not a voidable title at the commence- .
ment of the Act must be held .to be outside the pale of the · provi-
sions of the Act. S. 4 of the Act must be so construed. as not to
·have the·. effect ·of rendering void the title of any transf~ree which
was hot voidable at the date ohhe commencement of the Act.

We may further observe that as the provision of appeafhas
been incorporated by the Amending Ac\ which received the assent
of the Governor on the 29th day of l'ebruary, 1.984 and first,came . D
to be published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on the
3rd day of March, 1984, the Depuiy Commissioner to whom the
appeal will be presented will no doubt take this fact into consi-
.deration in deciding the question of !imitation in regard to any
appeal which may be filed against an order of the Assistant Commis.
E
sioner; if any •£Peal is preferred within a period of three· months
from the date tlic amended provision conferring the right of appeal
came into.force, the Deputy Commissioner taking into considera•
tion the fact that a period of three months has been prescribed for
preferring an appeal from the date of the order» of the Assist.ant
Commissioner, may have no difficulty in entertaining the appeal F
by condoning the delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act in terms
of the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under the
said Section SA, provided the Dep.uty Commissioner is .satisfied
that the appeal is otherwise maintainable and the interest. of
justice requires that the appeal sliould be entertained and not be
thrown out on the ground of limitation. G
With these obser.vations we .dismiss the appeals and the Special
Leave Petitions with no order as to costs.
.S.R. Appeals & Petitioi1s dismissed.
'. H