Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. On the question whether S. 5(4) affect-

ed alienations prior to 7-8-1978, that is alienations contemplated under the un-amended Section 5(3), it was held:

"87. In the light of the above principles of statutory construction, we hold that sub-sec. (4) of S. 5 of the Principal Act should be construed as being applicable only to transfers made subsequent to 7-8-1978 and not to transfers which had taken place prior to that date and that sub-sec. (3) occurring in the Section should be construed as having reference to amended sub-sec. (3) and not to original sub-sec. (3) of that Section."

27.2. We are not in agreement with the said view. What has been overlooked in Chikkanarasaiah (1LR (1989) Kant 1520) is that where the sale is prior to 7-8-1978, and a re-grant is after 7-8-1978, the benefit of re-grant relates back to the date of commencement of the Principal Act and thereby enures to the benefit of the alienee in whose favour, alienation has been made prior to 7-8-1978. The bar against alienation affected only alienations after 7-8-1978 and not alienations prior to 7-8-1978. Section 2(m) makes it clear that only a person who is an alienee under an alienation which is nuil and void under the laws relating to village office which were in force immediately prior to 1-2-1963 (that is the Mysore Village. Offices Act, (he Madras Hereditary Villages'Offices Act, 1895 and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874) or a person in possession without any manner of right (that is a rank trespasser or an alienee from a person who was neither a holder nor an authorised holder nor having any manner of right) is an 'unauthorised holder'. Under Ss. 5(1) and 6 of the Act, a 'holder' or an 'authorised holder' has a vested right to obtain re-grant. Once the person is held to be a 'holder' or 'unauthorised (sic) (authorised) holder', there is no discretion in the Authority to refuse re-grant. As noticed earlier, it cannot be said that the 'holder' or 'authorised holder' has no right at all in regard to the service inam land, till it is re-granted. No doubt he would get title, only when there is re-grant and not before, as has been held in Lakshmana Gowda's case while answering Question No. (ii). But nevertheless he has a vested right to get re-grant and that is why it was further held that he could validly transfer the land with the imperfect title, till 7-8-1978. When the re-grant is made, the re-grant will relate back to 1-2-1963 and perfect his title and the benefit thereof will automatically accrue to the alienee by application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel embodied in S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The bar against alienation contained in S. 5(4) which operates prospectively from 7-8-1978 will not therefore in any way affect any alienation made prior to 7-8-1978, nor affect the title that will enure to the alienor by reason of the re-grant. When the alienation is prior to 7-8- 1978, and the re-grant resulting in feeding the grant by estoppel is after 7-8-1978, there is no transfer or alienation after 7-8-1978. Thus, S.5(4) will not invalidate the alienation. Hence even if the bar against alienation imposed by the Statute will operate from the very instant of the grant, it will not in any way come in the way of re-grant relating back to the date of commencement of the Act and consequently enuring to the benefit of the alienee. We, therefore, hold that Chikka-narasiah also does not lay down the correct law.