Summary
Transfer of granted SC/ST land after commencement of the Karnataka protective Act required prior government permission even after expiry of the grant’s fifteen-year non-alienation period. The statutory prohibition operated independently of the grant conditions and land-grant rules. Concurrent findings rejected the claimed permissions as fabricated; criminal proceedings on that issue remained pending. An eight-year interval did not defeat restoration on these facts. The purchaser’s appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether government permission remained necessary after the grant’s fifteen-year restriction expired.
- Whether the eight-year interval barred action against these transfers.
- Whether the purchaser could replace his permission-based case with an unpleaded no-permission-needed case.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4 and 11, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978The overriding statutory requirement of prior permission applied to post-commencement transfers even after the grant’s prohibition period expired; contravening transfers were void. (¶¶ 3, 27–33)
- Rule 9(1)(i), as applicable to these grants, Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969Its time-bound grant restrictions and stricter conditions for earlier alienation did not displace the protective Act’s independent permission requirement. (¶¶ 2, 27–29)
Held
- The purchaser had consistently claimed prior permission. The contrary theory, raised without pleadings at the fifth level, was not merely a pure legal plea and could not properly replace that case; it also failed on merits. (¶ 26–27)
- Sections 4(2) and 11 required permission independently of grant terms. Expiry of fifteen years did not authorise unapproved transfers. Manchegowda’s observations concerned its limited pre-commencement-transfer challenge and were not an exemption for these later sales. (¶ 27–33)
- Eight years did not constitute disabling delay or laches on these facts under the beneficial legislation. The long-delay cases invoked by the purchaser involved materially greater intervals. (¶ 33–34)
- The cash transactions through the purchaser’s wife as attorney, with the power executed before expiry of fifteen years, further raised doubts but did not alter the independent statutory ground. The restoration orders were within jurisdiction. (¶ 35–37)
Result
Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. Orders nullifying the unapproved transfers and restoring the lands to the original grantees left undisturbed.