HC: Land granted to SC/ST in can be alienated after 20 years

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Lands granted to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be alienated after twenty years as per law, the High Court of Karnataka has iterated.

However, it took a buyer 50 years of litigation to enjoy the purchase. Beefathima, from Mangaluru, had purchased 15 cents of land from Koraga Mukhari from Tadambail, Surathkal village, Mangaluru on January 8, 1973.

It was only after the division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar ruled in her favour recently that she was able to enjoy the land. Mukhari had been granted 42 cents of land on August 21, 1935. The order of grant contained a condition for non-alienation of the land for a period of twenty years. He sold 15 cents of the land to Beefathima in 1973.

The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled T ribes ( Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was enacted in 1978. Section 4 of the Act makes any transfer of grant land null and void if it is in contravention of the terms of the grant. This was applicable to transfers made even before 1978. Mukhari filed an application in 1983 seeking resumption of the 15 cents of land.

The Assistant Commissioner in an order in1985 allowed the application and directed resumption of the said land in his favour. Beefathima challenged this before the Deputy Commissioner. In 1995, the DC dismissed her appeal. She then approached the HC in 2014. The judgement by the division bench was passed recently.

The HC in its judgment noted that “In the instant case, the grant of the land was made on 21.08.1935. After the expiry of the period prescribed in nonalienation clause i.e., 20 years, respondent No.5 alienated the part of the land i.e. 15 cents in favour of the appellant on 08.01.1973. Thus, the land was not transferred in favour of the appellant in violation of the terms and conditions of the grant.” The HC noted that Mukhari had filed the application ten years after the sale. “Besides that, there was a delay in filing the application seeking resumption of land, which is not permissible in law,” the HC noted.

The HC said both the AC and DC had erred. “However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner nor by the Deputy Commissioner.  The order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record as well from the vice of non-application of mind.

Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law,” the Court said. The Court quashed the order passed by the AC and DC allowing Beefathima the enjoyment of the land purchased in 1973. “The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively are hereby quashed,” the HC said.