Supreme Court Upholds Restoration of Forfeited Land: State of Karnataka vs. G. Ramanarayana Joshi (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 17, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 468
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a forfeited land be restored to its original owner even after it has been transferred to the Forest Department? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the restoration of land in Karnataka. The Court examined whether the transfer of land to the Forest Department constitutes a ‘disposal’ that would prevent its restoration to the original owner. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice A.S. Bopanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Horanadu village, Chikmagaluru District, Karnataka. The respondent, G. Ramanarayana Joshi, claimed ownership of the land (Survey No. 170, measuring 45.01 acres), which his ancestors had purchased in a public auction on December 10, 1887. Although the family had continued in uninterrupted possession of the land, it was forfeited to the Government in 1892 due to unpaid land revenue. Despite the forfeiture, the family remained in possession and continued to enjoy the property.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction to consider his restoration applications. The High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the applications. After the applications were rejected, the respondent filed another writ petition, which was allowed, and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to reconsider the applications. However, the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest negated the respondent’s claim, leading to another writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed this petition, quashing the Forest Department’s order and directing the restoration of the land. The State of Karnataka then filed an intra-court appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which deals with the restoration of forfeited land. Specifically, sub-rule (2) of Rule 119, as amended, is crucial. It states:

“(2) During a period of not more than one year from the date of commencement of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 2001 the Deputy Commissioner may, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1), restore any forfeited occupancy or alienated holding which has been purchased on account of the Government dues and which has not been disposed of otherwise, to the person who has not been dispossessed of such occupancy or holding immediately before such commencement, on payment of the arrears in respect of which the forfeiture was incurred together with the amount of land revenue in respect of the holding from the date of forfeiture to the date of restoration and the expenses incurred so far in the recovery and further proceedings as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner.”

This amendment allowed for the restoration of forfeited land within one year from the commencement of the amendment, provided that the land had not been disposed of otherwise and the original owner had not been dispossessed. The key issue was whether the transfer of land to the Forest Department constituted a “disposal” under this rule.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (State of Karnataka):

• The land was forfeited in 1892, making any application under Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, not maintainable.
• Even if the amended sub-rule (2) applies, it only allows restoration of land not “disposed of otherwise.”
• The Government of Karnataka had transferred the land to the Forest Department in 1994 for the formation of a land bank, which constitutes a disposal.
• The respondent had previously challenged the transfer of land to the Forest Department in W.P. No. 10786 of 2006, but the High Court did not interfere with the notification.
• The land was not in the possession of the respondent, as it was transferred to the Forest Department.

Respondent’s Arguments (G. Ramanarayana Joshi):

• The property was originally privately owned and forfeited due to non-payment of land revenue, but his family remained in possession.
• The respondent continued to cultivate the land, and his house and a temple are situated there.
• The amendment to sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, granted a right to seek restoration, which the respondent availed by filing an application within the prescribed time.
• The reports of the Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner established that the respondent continued to be in possession of the land.
• The transfer of land to the Forest Department was merely a transfer from one government department to another, not a disposal that would bar restoration.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondent’s argument that the transfer of land to the Forest Department was not a “disposal” as contemplated under Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, but merely a transfer of custody within the government, was a novel interpretation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the application filed under Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, was maintainable given that the land was forfeited in 1892?
2. Whether the transfer of land to the Forest Department by the Government of Karnataka in 1994 constitutes a “disposal” of the land, thereby precluding its restoration under sub-rule (2) of Rule 119?
3. Whether the respondent was in continuous possession of the land, and if so, what is its effect on the restoration?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966: The court interpreted sub-rule (2) of this rule to determine the conditions for restoration of forfeited land.
• Government Order No. RD 106 LGP 88, dated 20.07.1994: The court examined this order to determine the nature of the transfer of land to the Forest Department.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to restore the land to the respondent. The Court held that the transfer of land to the Forest Department was not a “disposal” that would bar restoration under Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The Court emphasized that the land was merely transferred from one arm of the government to another and continued to be classified as revenue land. The Court also noted the factual finding that the respondent had remained in continuous possession of the land.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The interpretation of the term “disposed of otherwise” in Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.
• The factual finding that the respondent remained in continuous possession of the land.
• The nature of the transfer of land to the Forest Department, which was deemed to be a transfer of custody rather than a disposal.

The Court emphasized that the intent of the amendment to Rule 119(2) was to allow for the restoration of forfeited land to those who had not been dispossessed. The Court held that a mere transfer of land between government departments does not extinguish the right of the original owner to seek restoration.

“The position therefore was that the Forest Department was made the ‘custodian’ of the revenue land for a limited purpose.”

“Hence, as on the date when the respondent had made an application it cannot be construed that the land in question had been disposed of as contemplated under sub­rule (2) to Rule 119 of Rules 1966.”

“In that light, if the possession had continued with the respondent, the respondent was entitled for consideration of his application for restoration.”

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combined analysis of the legal provisions and the factual matrix of the case. The Court interpreted the legal provisions to align with the factual situation, emphasizing the need to protect the rights of those who had not been dispossessed of their land.

Key Takeaways

• A transfer of land between government departments does not necessarily constitute a “disposal” that would bar restoration to the original owner.
• Continuous possession of the land by the original owner is a crucial factor in determining the right to restoration.
• The intent of the law is to restore land to those who have not been dispossessed, even if the land has been forfeited due to non-payment of revenue.
• Factual findings on possession by competent authorities are crucial and cannot be easily overturned.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal, thereby upholding the High Court’s direction to restore the land to the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a transfer of land between government departments does not constitute a “disposal” that would bar restoration of the land to its original owner under Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, provided the original owner has remained in continuous possession. This clarifies the interpretation of “disposed of otherwise” in the context of restoration of forfeited lands. This judgment clarifies that the term “disposed of otherwise” should be interpreted strictly to mean an actual transfer of ownership to a third party, not merely a transfer of custody between government departments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka vs. G. Ramanarayana Joshi reinforces the principle that the law should protect the rights of those who have not been dispossessed of their land. The Court’s interpretation of Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, ensures that the right to restoration is not easily defeated by mere administrative transfers of land between government departments. This judgment provides clarity on the conditions for the restoration of forfeited land and highlights the importance of continuous possession by the original owner.