Karnataka High Court
Onkarappa vs Sanna Neelappa on 31 May, 1989
Equivalent citations: ILR1990KAR727, 1990(1)KARLJ54
ORDER Balakrishna, J.
1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both parties.
2. The point for consideration is whether the Rules set out in the Mysore Land Revenue Code called the Mysore Land Revenue Rules regulate the conditions of grant made on 11-2-1960 to the grantees.
3. The following are the material facts of the case:
The petitioners are the purchasers from the original grantees of lands situated in Sy.Nos.160 and Block Nos. 191, 183, 192 and 161 of Sy.No. 86. The lands are situated in Hireyemmiganur village of Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. All the grants were made on 11-2-1960. But the Saguvali Chits were issued on different dates and the dates are 12-12-1972, 23-1-1973, 22-8-1972, 5-10-1960 and 5-10-1967 respectively. Whereas the grants were made in all the cases on 11-2-1960 under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which came into force on 6-7-1955, the Saguvali Chits were issued in respect of the grant made on 11-2-1960 relating to the lands situated in Block Nos. 182 and 161 of Sy.No. 86 under the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. But in respect of the grants made on 11-2-1960 in relation to the lands situated in Sy.No. 160 and Block Nos. 191 and 183 of Sy.No. 86, Saguvali Chits were issued under the Karna-taka Land Grant Rules, 1969. In so far as the Saguvaii Chits issued under the 1960 Rules are concerned, there was a prohibition on alienation for a period of 15 years irrespective of the question whether the grant was made at an upset price or free of cost. But the 1960 Rules carne into force with effect from 3-5-1960. The grants in all these cases were made prior to 3-5-1960 and to be more precise on 11-2-1960 and obviously 1960 Rules do not bind the grant of lands made prior to 3-5-1960.
4. On behalf of the petitioners, the learned Counsel submitted that none of these grantees has violated the restrictive clause and, therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable. The contention is based on the provisions of Rule 43-A(3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which were in force prior to 3-5-1960. Emphasis is laid on the word 'grant' by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and, according to him, the construction that is to be placed on the wordings embodied in Rule 43-A(3) of the Rules is that the prohibition on alienation commences from the date of the grant and extends to a period of 15 years thereafter only. The other contention is that even if the Saguvali Chit is issued at the time when 1969 Rules came into force, the date of commencement or the date of operation of the prohibition clause is not from the date of issue of the Saguvali Chit. The learned Counsel seeks to derive strength to his argument from the date of grant and not from the date of issue of Saguvali Chit.
5. But, on the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents-6 and 7 has placed strong reliance on the various dates on which Saguvali Chits were issued to the grantees basing the argument on the premise that the date of commencement of the prohibition on alienation is the date on which possession was taken by the grantees. According to the learned Government Advocate what is relevant Is not the date of the grant but the date of issue of the Saguvali Chit for the purpose of determining when the possession was taken.
6. If the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is accepted, the Writ Petition will have to be allowed.
7. Admittedly in all these cases the grant of lands took place on 11-2-1960 and, at that time which is relevant, in my opinion, for the purpose of determination of the question with which we are confronted, the Mysore Land Revenue Rules were in force and it would be necessary to examine the meaning and effect of the relevant provision of law. The relevant provision is to be found in Rule 43-A(3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which reads as follows:
"Every grant of land under Sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the conditions:-
(i) where the grant is made free of cost, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of the grant; or
(ii) where the grant is made for an upset price, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of the grant;
(iii)....."
8. I do not find any ambiguity in the wordings of this Rule. The plain meaning apparent from the Rule is that where the grant is free of cost, the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years commencing from the date of the grant; but if it is a grant at an upset price, then it shall not be alienated for a period of ten years commencing from the date of the grant. The Rule is not obviously capable of the meaning that the date of commencement of the prohibition is on the date of taking possession of the land by the grantee. This is obviously so because the expression 'possession' or taking possession has not been employed in this Rule at all. The Rule has to be read in the form in which it exists and nothing extraneous could be imported into it nor anything taken away from the Rule. For the first time the word 'possession' is used in the Land Grant Rules only in 1969 Amendment Rules. I, therefore, cannot accept the contention that the prohibition commences with effect from the date of the possession or from the date of issue of the Saguvali Chit and not from the date of the grant of land.
9. The learned Government Advocate also contended that the issue of Saguvali Chit is one of the important considerations for the purpose of perfecting the grant. If that position is accepted, the date of issue of Saguvali Chit becomes relevant and the completed grant takes effect on the date of the issue of the Saguvali Chit and, therefore, the prohibition commences from that date only.
10. Issue of a Saguvali Chit symbolises physical possession and vesting of the right to cultivation in the grantee, whereas grant of land is indicative of constructive possession. There could be a grant of land even without the issue of a Saguvali Chit. The issue of a Saguvali Chit only enables or empowers the grantee to cultivate the land and it cannot be said that there is no grant of land unless a Saguvali Chit is issued. But in view of the fact that all the grants were made on 11-2-1960, the provisions of Rule 43-A(3) have to be strictly construed and applied and, on such a construction and application of the Rule, the only inference which could be drawn is that the Legislature intended that the prohibitive clause ought to commence with effect from the date of grant in so far as Rule 43-A(3) is concerned. Though, on 11-2-1960, the Saguvali Chit had not been issued to the grantees, the fact remains that Rule 43-A(3) was in existence and it stipulated the conditions of the grant and those conditions bind the grantees. If the argument that the provision should be regarded as having commenced from the date of issue of the Saguvali Chit is to be accepted, then we would be placed in an unenviable and anomalous situation that the grantees are bound by not only the conditions incorporated in Rule 43-A(3), but also in the Rules of 1969. As aptly said:
"A word is not a crystal holding its form and its substance through the ages; it is the 'skin of a living thought'. " - Oliver Wendel Holmes.
The letter of law is not to be taken as conclusive only when a literal interpretation of the statute would result in such absurdity and unreasonableness as to make it too obvious that the legislature could not have meant what it said. That Is not the situation in the present context.
In VELUSWAMY v. RAJA NAINAR, the Supreme Court observed:
"It may be stated that when on a construction of a statute two views are possible, one which results in an anomaly and the other not, it is the duty of the Court to adopt the latter and not the former seeking consolation in the thought that the law bristles with anomalies."
The situation calls for a harmonious construction. Applying the principle of harmonious construction, I hold that the conditions embodied in Rule 43-A(3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules are attracted to the facts of the case and not the conditions incorporated in the Saguvali Chits issued to the grantees subsequent to 11-2-1960.
11. Another important aspect which requires to be noticed in these cases is that all these grantees were invested with possession anterior to the grand of lands made on 11-2-1960 by lease of lands to the grantees prior to 11-2-1960 under the "Grow More Food Scheme". Even though undue importance cannot be attached to possession given under the Grow More Food Scheme in the form of a lease, too much of emphasis on possession becomes superfluous in the context. At the risk of repetition, it has to be observed that what is relevant and germane to the issue is whether in all these cases alienation has taken place before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of commencement of the grants. My opinion is that there is no violation of the condition imposed against alienation for a period of ten years. Computing the period from the date of the grant, it has to be held that in all these cases, alienation has taken place after the expiry of the period of ten years.
12. For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of respondents-6 and 7 under Annexures 'A' to 'P' are hereby quashed. The provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, cannot be invoked in the circumstances of these cases to divest the petitioners of their lands. In the circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs.