"8. On a plain reading, granted land will mean, any land granted by the Government to a person, who is a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which includes land allotted to such persons. Grant may be of different types; it may be by absolute transfer of the interest of the State Government to the person concerned; it may be only by transfer of the possession of the land, by way of allotment, without conveying the title over such land of the State Government. If by grant, the transferee has acquired absolute title to the land in question from the State Government, then subject to protection provided by the different provisions of the Act, he will be subject to the same period of limitation as is prescribed for other citizens by the provisions of the Limitation Act, in respect of extinguishment of title over land by adverse possession. On the other hand, if the land has been allotted by way of grant and the title remains with the State Government, then to extinguish the title that has remained of the State Government by adverse possession, by a transferee on the basis of an alienation made in his favour by an allottee, the period of limitation shall be 30 years. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that some of the States in order to protect the members of the Scheduled Tribes from being dispossessed from the lands which belong to them and of which they are absolute owners, for purpose of extinguishment of their title by adverse possession, have prescribed special period of limitation, saying that it shall be 30 years. In Bihar, vide Regulation No. 1 of 1969, in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, it has been prescribed that it would be 30 years in respect of immovable property belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribes as specified in Part III to the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950."

                                                                REPORTABLE


                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4255 OF 2002





G. KRISHNAREDDY                                              .... Appellant




                                     Versus




SAJJAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.                              .... Respondents





                                 JUDGMENT





Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.




  1. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and   order



  dated   20.10.1998   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the



  Karnataka   High   Court   in   Writ   Appeal   No.   3269   of   1998



  dismissing the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant.




  2. Brief   facts   leading   to   the   filing   of   the   case   are   that   the



  disputed land was allotted through  a grant by the  State of


Karnataka   to   one   Smt.   Munemma   on   08.01.1957   with   a



condition prohibiting any alienation of the land for a period



of 15 years. Gopalappa, late father of the appellant herein,



purchased   the   said   land   from   Smt.   Munemma   under   a



registered sale deed dated 20.12.1968.




3. In   view   of   the   coming   into   force   of   the   Karnataka



Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   [Prohibition   of



Transfer   of   Certain   Lands]   Act,   1978   [for   short   "the



Prohibition   of   Transfer   Act"]   Smt.   Munemma   made   an



application   under   the   said   Prohibition   of   Transfer   Act   for



the resumption of the land in question on the ground that it



was   purchased   by   Gopalappa,   late   father   of   the   appellant,



in   violation   of   the   prohibition   clause   of   the   grant.   By



passing an order dated 07.06.1984 Assistant Commissioner



allowed the application filed by Smt. Munemma which was



also   confirmed   by   the   Deputy   Commissioner   in   appeal.



Against   the   said   order   of   the   Deputy   Commissioner   the



predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed a Writ Petition



before the Karnataka High Court, which remanded back the



matter   to   the   appropriate   authority   for   its   disposal   in


accordance   with   law.   Pursuant   thereto   the   Assistant



Commissioner   after   conducting   an   enquiry   vide   its   order



dated 10.10.1995 held that the purchaser  is in possession



of   the   land   for   more   than   12   years   which   decision   was



further   confirmed   in   appeal   by   the   Deputy   Commissioner.



Against the aforesaid order a Writ Petition was filed by the



heirs   of   the   original   grantee   which   was   registered   as   Writ



Petition No. 26848/1997.




4. Learned   Single   Judge   who   heard   the   aforesaid   Writ



Petition   vide   order   dated   15.06.1998   held   that   the



authorities below erred in law in applying the principles of



adverse possession to the case in hand. The learned Single



Judge   held   that   since   the   purchaser   had   taken   the   stand



that by purchasing the said land under a valid sale deed he



had been enjoying the cultivation and possession in his own



right   as   owner   thereof,   therefore,   he   is   precluded   from



setting up the inconsistent plea of adverse possession either



as against the State or the grantee. It was also held that the



aforesaid   allotted   land   through   a   grant   was   purchased   by



the purchaser in contravention  of the prohibition clause of


the grant in question. Consequently, the  said Writ Petition



filed by the heirs of the original grantee succeeded and the



impugned   orders   were   quashed   and   the   Assistant



Commissioner was directed to take action according to law



to restore possession of the said land to the respondent.




5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order a Writ Appeal was



filed by the appellant herein which was dismissed by order



dated 20.10.1998 as against which the present appeal has



been filed, on which we heard learned counsel appearing for



the   appellant,   who   during   the  course  of   his  argument  had



taken us through the records also. The respondent despite



service did not enter appearance.




6.    The   land   involved   in   the   present   case   is   Sy   No.   53


measuring   2   acres   situated   in   Village-Hebbatta,   Taluk-



Srinivaspur, District-Kolar.  While granting land in favour of



the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the   respondent   herein



through   a   grant   dated   8th  January,   1957   it   was   clearly



stipulated   in   the   grant   that   the   said   land   cannot   be



transferred   for   15   years.   Subsequently,   however,   on


20.12.1968 the said land was purchased by the late father



of appellant. Earlier to the same an agreement to sale was



also entered into between the parties on 25.12.1965.




7. However,   after   coming   into   force   of   the   Karnataka



Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   [Prohibition   of



Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, w.e.f., 01.01.1979, the



original   grantee   -   Smt.   Munemma   made   an   application



under Section 5 of the Prohibition of Transfer Act before the



Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land on



the  ground  that  it was purchased by the  late  father  of  the



appellant in violation of the prohibition clause of the grant.



The   application   of   Smt.   Munemma   was   allowed   by   the



Assistant  Commissioner   which  was also  upheld by Deputy



Commissioner   in   appeal.   Against   the   said   decision   of   the



Deputy   Commissioner   a   Writ   Petition   was   filed   by   the



appellant   before   the   Karnataka   High   Court,   which



remanded back the matter to be decided by the appropriate



authority in accordance with law.


8. Pursuant   to   the   said   order   of   the   High   Court   an



application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner. At



this stage it would be appropriate to extract the provisions



of Section 4 and 5 of the said Prohibition Act: -




  "4. PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF GRANTED LANDS-


     (1)    Notwithstanding   anything   in   any   law,   agreement,

            contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land

            made   either   before   or   after   the   commencement   of

            this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of

            such   land   or   the   law   providing   for   such   grant,   or

            sub-Section  (2) shall  be null and  void  and  no right

            title  or interest in  such land  shall  be conveyed not

            be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.


     (2)    No person shall, after the commencement of this Act

            transfer   or   acquire   by   transfer   any   granted   land

            without the previous permission of the Government.


     (3)    The provision 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  an  award  or order of

            any other authority.


  5. RESUMPTION AND RESTITUTION OF GRANTED LANDS-


  (1)   Where   an   application   by   any   interested   person   or   on

  information   given   in   writing   by   any   person   or   suo   motu,

  and   after   such   enquiry   as   he   deems   necessary   the

  Assistant   Commissioner   is   satisfied   that   the   transfer   of

  any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of

  section 4, he may -


  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   in   such   grantee   or   legal   heir   such   land   shall   be

     deemed   to   have   vested   in   the   Government   free   from   all

     encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a

     person   belonging   to   any   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   or

     Scheduled  Tribes in  accordance  with  the  rules relating  to

     grant of lands.


     (1A)   After   an   enquiry   referred   to   in   sub-section(1)   the

     Assistant   Commissioner   may   if   he   is   satisfied   that

     transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an

     order accordingly.


     (2)   Subject   to   the   orders   of   the   Deputy   Commissioner

     under Section 5A, any order passed under sub-section (1)

     and (1A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any

     court   of   law   and   no   injunction   shall   be   granted   by   any

     court   in   respect   of   any   proceeding   taken   or   about   to   be

     taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any

     power conferred by or under this Act.


     (3)   For   the   purposes   of   this   section   where   any   granted

     land   is   in   the   possession   of   a   person   other   than   the

     original grantee or his legal heir it shall be presumed until

     the  contrary  is  proved that  such person has  acquired  the

     land   by   a   transfer   which   is   null   and   void   under   the

     provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4."





The   Assistant   Commissioner   after   hearing   the   parties,



however, rejected the application holding that the late father of



the   appellant   is   protected   from   dispossession   by   way   of


application   of   the   plea   of   adverse   possession   which   decision



was   also   confirmed   in   appeal   by   the   Deputy   Commissioner.



But   in   a   Writ   Petition   filed   by   the   respondent   the   learned



Single  Judge   of the   High  Court  set  aside  the  said  findings  of



the   authorities   below   and   directed   for   the   restoration   of



possession   of   the   land   in   favour   of   the   respondent.   Learned



Single   Judge   further   held   that   no   transfer   could   have   been



made   by   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   respondent,   i.e.,   Smt.



Munemma and, therefore, alienation made in favour of the late



father of the appellant was contrary to the prohibition  clause



of the said grant as also to the provisions of law.




   9. It   is   clear   from   the   aforesaid   position   that   in   order   to



   overcome the aforesaid difficulties the appellant took up the



   plea   of   adverse   possession   by   way   of   defence.   The



   predecessor-in-interest   of   the   appellant   claimed   title   over



   the said land by virtue of purchase and at no stage he had



   put   up   any   hostile   claim   to   the   property.   The   plea   was   of



   ownership by right of purchase and therefore a lawful right



   to   enjoy   the   property.   The   learned   Single   Judge   while



   allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent has made


reference to the aforesaid position and held that the plea of



adverse possession was not available to the predecessor-in-



interest   of   the   appellant   in   law   and   in   view   of   such   legal



position the authorities below erred in accepting the plea of



adverse   possession   in   respect   of   the   granted   land.   There



appears to be justification in the findings of the High Court.




10. Even otherwise, we may refer to the decision of this Court



in K.T. Buchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner and Others



reported in  (1994) 3 SCC 536  where at paragraph 8 of the



said judgment this Court has held thus: -




   "8. On a plain  reading, granted land will  mean, any

   land granted by the Government to a person, who is

   a   member   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   or   Scheduled

   Tribes which  includes land  allotted  to  such persons.

   Grant   may   be   of   different   types;   it   may   be   by

   absolute   transfer   of   the   interest   of   the   State

   Government to  the person concerned; it may  be only

   by transfer of the  possession of the land, by way  of

   allotment,  without conveying the title  over such land

   of   the   State   Government.   If   by   grant,   the   transferee

   has   acquired   absolute   title   to   the   land   in   question

   from the State Government, then subject to protection

   provided by the different provisions of the Act, he will

   be   subject   to   the   same   period   of   limitation   as   is

   prescribed  for other  citizens  by the  provisions  of  the

   Limitation   Act,   in   respect   of   extinguishment   of   title

   over land by adverse possession. On the other hand,

   if the land has been allotted by way of grant and the


   title   remains   with   the   State   Government,   then   to

   extinguish   the   title   that   has   remained   of   the   State

   Government by adverse  possession,  by a  transferee

   on the  basis  of  an  alienation  made  in  his  favour by

   an allottee, the period of limitation shall be 30 years.

   Incidentally,   it   may   be   mentioned   that   some   of   the

   States   in   order   to   protect   the   members   of   the

   Scheduled   Tribes   from  being   dispossessed   from   the

   lands   which   belong   to   them   and   of   which   they   are

   absolute   owners,   for   purpose   of   extinguishment   of

   their   title   by   adverse   possession,   have   prescribed

   special period of limitation, saying that it shall be 30

   years.   In   Bihar,   vide   Regulation   No.   1   of   1969,   in

   Article   65   of   the   Limitation   Act,   it   has   been

   prescribed   that   it   would   be   30   years   in   respect   of

   immovable   property   belonging   to   a   member   of   the

   Scheduled   Tribes   as   specified   in   Part   III   to   the

   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   (Scheduled   Tribes)

   Order, 1950."




11. Therefore, so as to ascertain whether in the present case



the  period  of limitation  would  be 12 years or   30  years,  we



have perused the grant given to the predecessor-in-interest



of the Respondent, a copy of which was placed on record by



the   appellant.   A   bare   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   grant   would



indicate that nowhere in the  said grant it has been clearly



and specifically stated that it has been an absolute transfer



of the right in title and possession by the State Government



to   the   concerned   person.   A   bare   perusal   of   the   document



would   also   indicate   that   it   was   only   a  transfer   of   the


possession  of  the  land   by  way  of allotment  and   in  none   of



the clauses of the grant it is stated that it is a conveyance of



the title over such land by the State Government. Clause 1



of the grant gives authority to the grantee to clear the land



and   to   bring   it   to   cultivable   stage.   It   further   provides   that



the grantee can enjoy the property for 15 years. Not only the



grant   was   only   for   a   limited   period   but   it   was   also   for



cultivation. Therefore, it was a grant for possession by way



of cultivation for a limited period and it cannot be said that



by the aforesaid grant the transferee had acquired absolute



title   to   the   land   in   question   from   the   State   Government.



Therefore,   the   period   of   limitation   which   would   have   been



applicable   in   the   present   case   would   be   30   years,   in   the



light of the ratio laid down by the said decision.




12.       In any case the appellant has failed to make out any



case for interference. We find no merit in this appeal, which



stands   dismissed,   leaving   the   parties   to   bear   their   own



costs.





                                         ............................................J


                            [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]




                          .........................................J

                            [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi,

July 18, 2011.