CUSTOM SEARCH

Loading...

TOPICS AVAILABLE IN THIS BLOG

CASE LAW ON SC/ST LANDS AND ITS TRANSFERS

CASE LAW ON SC/ST LANDS AND ITS TRANSFERS

In regard to SC/ST lands granted by government on condition restricting alienation, any transfers made even after the restricted period is declared as void. Government permission is necessary for such transfers. This law is laid down by karnataka High court in a case of Narayan parameshwar naik and others vs Deputy commissioner karwar and others 1999(6) KarLJ 244.

Only lands granted with restriction on alienation are covered under PTCL ACT 1978.

Land granted to a person not belonging to sc/st at the time of grant and if by subsequent notification caste is added to sc/st group. Such lands also attract PTCL ACT. T.M. Rangaiah &another vs The AC Tiptur. 2002(5) KarLJ.188B.

Land in respect of which occupancy right is conferred under Land reforms act as a tenant to an sc/st person. Such conferment of occupancy right is not a granted land. Mohammed Jaffar and another vs State of Kar &Others 2003(1)KarLJ 337 (FB).

Under PTCL ACT exchange or gift in favour of relative is also prohibited. Siddalingaiah vs State of Kar 1988(3) KarLJ sh.N. 13.

Even if such transferee is also a sc/st such transefers also void. Smt Anjanamma vs The DC Kolar Dist 2000(4) KarLJ sh.N.22A.

Period of prohibiton starts from the date of issuance of saguvali chit. Karappa Bovi vs Special Dc mys 1990 (3 KarLJ 361 (DB).

Settlement among familly does not amount to transfer. Kariaiah vs DC mys Dist 2000(1)KarLJ .sh.N.48.

Only those transfers of lands which have taken place on or before 1-1-1949 having completed 30 years prior to 1-1-1979 are saved from the proceedings under PTCL ACT. V.Muniswamy vs Deputy comm kolar 1993(3) KarLJ 346.(DB).

Land granted for full market or upset price; condition for non transefering is not attracted in such cases. Narasimhamurthy vs State of Karnataka and others 2001(2) KarLJ 313A.

Deputy Commissioner is authorised to permit grantee under Rule 9(1) of The Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 to sell the land for two reasons (a) For acquiring other land. (b) For improving remaining land. The 50% of market value of the land as determined by DC shall be paid to government at the time of sanctioning. Such applications are allowed only after 5 years of the grant.

THIRD PARTY CANNOT CHALLENGE GRANT CONDITIONS


Grantee is not challenging the condition - Third party is not entitled to say that conditions imposed by grantor to grantee were void. FOR FULL CASE CLICK HERE


UNDER MYSORE (PERSONAL AND MISCELLANEOUS) INAMS ABOLITION ACT, 1954, SECTION 5 — PERMANENT TENANTS ARE REGISTERED AS OCCUPANTS ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE CONDITION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RESTRICTION ON ALIENATION.

1. Granted land — Definition of — Only Government land granted to person belonging to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, under provisions of any enactment, is to be considered as "granted land"


2. Tenanted inam land that stood vested in State Government consequent upon abolition of inams, does not become "granted land" when occupancy right in respect of land is conferred on tenant thereof, merely because tenant happened to be person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe — Vesting of tenanted inam land in State Government is not absolute but is subject to vested right of tenant to got occupancy conferred on him and conferment of occupancy right on tenant by Special Deputy Commissioner does not amount to making grant of land — Alienation of inam land by tenant after fitting occupancy right conferred on him is not hit by prohibition contained in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.


3. Hon,ble Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar, Held in a case of M. Munikenchappa v The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others, Reported in 2004(3) Kar. L.J. 579.: The land in question was the subject-matter of the- order of the Special Deputy Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act. An order of this nature is one passed for recognizing a pre-existing right of a person who is already in possession. The Special Deputy Commissioner virtually functions as a Tribunal for such purposes, In respect of lands for which occupancy rights are conferred such a land cannot be construed as a 'granted land' under the provisions of Section 3(l)(b) of the Act. The subject land which was also the subject-matter of the order dated 3-2-1962 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and in exercise of his powers under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act, cannot be construed as a 'granted land' within the meaning of this phrase occurring in Section 3(l)(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.











UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES A CASE BEFORE FULL BENCH OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA WAS DECIDED BY HON’BLE JUSTICES N.K. JAIN, H. RANGAVITTALACHAR AND V.G, SABHAHIT, HAS PASSED A SIMILAR JUDGEMENT RELATED TO TENANTED LANDS. In Mohammed Jaffar and Another V State of Karnataka and Others, Reported in 2003(1) Kar. L.J. 337 (FB).

1. Tenanted land that stood vested in State Government as on 1-3-1974 under Land Reforms Act, does not become "granted land" when occupancy in respect of such land is conferred on tenant, merely because tenant happens to be person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe — Vesting of tenanted land in State Government is not absolute but is subject to vested right of tenant to get occupancy conferred on him — Conferment of occupancy right on tenant by Land Tribunal does not amount to making grant of land — Alienation of land in respect of which occupancy was conferred on erstwhile tenant, held, is not hit by prohibitions contained in Act of 1978.

2. A bare reading of Section 3(l)(b) of the PTCL Act makes it clear that the land should be granted by the Government and such land is to be granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes under the relevant law including agrarian reforms. Once the land is held to be a granted land, the restriction contained in Section 4 regarding the apprehension of transfer of land would apply. . . . Section 44 of the KLR Act deals with vesting of the land in the Government. Therefore, the land which is not granted by the State Government cannot prima facie be hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act.

3. All the lands held by or in possession of the tenants vest with the State Government free from all encumbrances and the State Government is entitled to take possession of the said properties. However, as per Section 44(e) the Government is not entitled to take possession of the tenanted land and the permanent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding the land are entitled to such right or privileges and subject to such conditions provided under Act. In view of Section 44 of the KLR Act, it is clear that conferment of occupancy right by the Land Tribunal, and not by the Government, is only a declaration or pre-existing right which has been conferred on the tenant under Section 45 and vesting of the land is subject to right that is conferred on the tenant for conferment of occupancy right- Section 45 of the KLR Act gives a right to a person who is a tenant on the land to get the occupancy right conferred in his favour and Sections 48 and 48-A deals with the constitution of the Tribunals and enquiry by the Tribunal. The occupancy right will be conferred by the Land Tribunal and not by the Government under Section 48-A of the KLR Act on a tenant who was cultivating the land personally on 1-3-1974. Therefore, what is conferred on the tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974 is the declaration of his occupancy right of land on 1-3-1974, by the Tribunal. The preamble to the KLR Act clearly shows that the Act is enacted to confer ownership on the tenants and wherefore, it is clear that the conferment of occupancy right on the tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974 is conferment of ownership on the tenant as per the preamble to the Act and the same is subject to certain restrictions which are imposed in the certificate of registration issued under Section 55 of the Act in Form 10.

4. Conferment of occupancy right is only declaration of the fact that the tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974 and the land which has vested with the Government, the tenant js declared as the occupant of the said land subject to the restrictions contained in the certificate of registration and if the tenant proves that he has been personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974 he cannot be denied conferment of occupancy right. .... Under the circumstances, it is clear that occupancy right cannot at all fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under the PTCL Act. The vesting of land in the Government is subject to vested right of a tenant to get occupancy right and for determination of right and conferment of occupancy by Land Tribunal, a Statutory Authority established under the Land Reforms Act, is the Competent Authority to determine the same on a tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974.

5. In view of this, the occupancy right, which has been granted by the Land Tribunal, cannot be construed as "granted land" as defined under the PTCL Act. The land in respect of which the occupancy right has conferred under Section 48-A of the KLR Act would not fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under Section 3(1 }(b) of the PTCL Act.




For detailed reference of above case laws following web addresses will help you:

For supreme court cases upto date:
http://www.commonlii.org/in/cases/INSC/


http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp


For Several high court decisions:

http://www.commonlii.org/resources/221.html

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS