Supreme Court settles rights of alienee in re-granted service inam land: N. Venkateshappa vs. Munemma & Ors (2016)

Can an alienee of service inam land claim title after the land is re-granted to the original holder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question. The court considered the rights of alienees when the alienation occurred between February 1, 1963, and August 7, 1978. The bench comprised Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Uday Umesh Lalit, with the judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case involves agricultural land in Karnataka that was originally Thalavari Inamthi land. Muni Papanna and his father, Narasappa, sold the land to Nadumpalli Muneppa on May 13, 1971. This sale occurred after the Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 came into force. The land was later re-granted to Muni Papanna on March 31, 1982. This re-grant was challenged, and after some proceedings, it was confirmed in favor of Muni Papanna alone.

The dispute arose when the successor-in-interest of the alienee, Nadumpalli Muneppa, filed a suit. The suit claimed ownership of the land based on the re-grant to the original holder. The defendants were the wife and children of Muni Papanna. They had sold the land to other parties and were obstructing the plaintiff’s possession.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the alienee’s successor. The court relied on previous High Court decisions. It held that the alienation was valid and the re-grant benefited the alienee. The lower Appellate Court upheld this decision. However, the High Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The High Court held that the alienee was evicted before the re-grant. Therefore, the alienee could not claim the benefit of the re-grant. The Supreme Court heard the matter in appeal.

Legal Framework

The Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961, abolished hereditary village offices. Section 4 of the Act states that land annexed to a village office was resumed by the government. Section 5 of the Act provides for re-grant of the land to the previous holders. The Act was amended in 1978. Section 5(4) was inserted, stating that any transfer of land in contravention of the Act is void. The 1978 amendment also modified Section 7, which deals with the eviction of unauthorized holders.

Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 states:
“Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (3) shall be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances…”

Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 states:
“Where any land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorised holder such unauthorised holder shall be summarily evicted therefrom…”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the alienation in favor of their predecessor was valid. They relied on the High Court decisions in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed v. State of Karnataka. These cases held that a re-grant benefits the alienee if the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978. The appellant contended that the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel applied. The re-grant to the original holder should benefit the alienee.

The respondents argued that the alienee was evicted from the land before the re-grant. Therefore, the alienee could not claim the benefit of the re-grant. They contended that the re-grant should benefit the heirs of the original holder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the alienee of a service inam land, alienated between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978, could claim title after the land was re-granted to the original holder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied heavily on two previous decisions of the High Court of Karnataka:

• Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1: This case established that if a holder of service inam land alienates it after the Act came into force, the alienee acquires title after the re-grant to the alienor. The title relates back to the date the Act came into force.
• Syed Bhasheer Ahamed v. State of Karnataka 1994 (1) KLJ 385: This Full Bench decision affirmed the view in Lakshmana Gowda. It held that an alienee under an alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 is not an unauthorized holder. The benefit of the re-grant enures to the alienee.

The Supreme Court also considered the following provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961:

• Section 4: Abolishes village offices and resumes annexed lands.
• Section 5: Provides for re-grant of resumed lands to the previous holders.
• Section 5(4): States that transfers in contravention of the Act are void.
• Section 7: Deals with the eviction of unauthorized holders.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent view of the lower courts. The Court stated that the law on the rights of an alienee of Inam land is settled by the decisions in Lakshmana Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed.

The Court observed that upon re-grant, the title of the holder of the service inam land relates back to the date of the Act. The alienation by the original holder on 13.05.1971 would benefit the alienee. The Court stated that the alienee was not an “unauthorized holder.” Therefore, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act.

The Supreme Court quoted the High Court’s observation in Lakshmana Gowda:
“…the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppels embodied in S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, would apply and the title he subsequently acquired on such re-grant of that land, would ensure to the benefit of his alienee, who would get a good title to such land after such re-grant to his alienor.”

The Supreme Court also quoted the Full Bench decision in Syed Bhasheer Ahamed:
“There is no provision in the Act authorizing the State Government or its authorities to evict an alienee under an alienation made between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978…If the land alienated between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, is subsequently re-granted to the alienor, the benefit of such re-grant, namely, title will enure to the benefit of the alienee.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal precedent set by the High Court of Karnataka. The consistent interpretation of the Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961, in Lakshmana Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed, weighed heavily on the Court’s mind. The Court emphasized the principle of “feeding the grant by estoppel.” This principle ensures that when a grantor acquires a title after making a grant, that title benefits the grantee. The Court also considered the fact that the alienee was not an unauthorized holder, making the eviction proceedings invalid.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Alienees of service inam lands, where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978, can claim title after the land is re-granted to the original holder.
• ✓ The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel applies in such cases, ensuring that the benefit of the re-grant enures to the alienee.
• ✓ Eviction proceedings against such alienees are not valid, as they are not considered “unauthorized holders.”
• ✓ This judgment reaffirms the legal position established by the High Court of Karnataka in Lakshmana Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and orders of the High Court. The Court restored the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an alienee of service inam land, where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978, is entitled to the benefit of the re-grant of the land to the original holder. This judgment reaffirms the established position of law in Karnataka, and there is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case upholds the rights of alienees of service inam lands. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel applies in cases where alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978. This decision provides clarity and reinforces the legal position in Karnataka, ensuring that the benefit of re-grant enures to the alienee.