Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)
Hanumanna vs Machappa on 27 November, 1995 cites

Laxmamma And Etc., Etc. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 10 January, 1983

Even in Section 4 of the Act, the term employed is "in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the rule providing for such grant". It is thus clear from the above discussion that the conditions embodied in the Rule that was applicable at the time when the grant was made, would apply and they will not get postponed to a future date merely because the Grant Certificate had been issued at some future date by the Authorities concerned. When once such a conclusion is reached, Rule 43-A(3) has to be read as it existed on the date of the grant. It has to be clarified, therefore, that if the Grant Certificate was not issued at once with the date of the grant as it was required to be issued in the normal course by the Authorities concerned and if, for some reason, the Grant Certificate had been issued at a future date, as it happened in the present case, then the rights and obligations flowing from such grant which were applicable at the time of the grant, will not stand postponed to a future date merely because the Grant Certificate had been issued at a subsequent date and not at once with the date of the grant In this background, when this Court in Laxmamma's case, said that the term "the date of the grant" should be read as the date from which the Saguvali Chit is actually issued to the grantee, it has to be read in the context that normally the Saguvali Chit or Grant Certificate should be required to be issued at once to the grantee on the date of the grant itself and it never contemplated a situation where contrary to such normal practice, the Grant Certificate was issued at some future date and the date of grant of the land to the grantee and the date of issue of Grant Certificate in respect of such grant were made on two different dates and not on the same date. There may be cases as the present one, where the date of grant was much prior to the date of the issue of the Grant Certificate. In that contingency, which is contrary to the normal Rule, the rights and obligations created in favour of the grantee on the date of the grant of land will not stand postponed to some future date merely because the Grant Certificate had been issued at some future date and not at once with the date of the grant. We are, therefore, very clear in our view that the conditions embodied in the Rule that was prevailing at the time of the grant will not get postponed to a future date merely because the Grant Certificate had been issued at a subsequent date and not at once with the date of the grant. In the present case, admittedly the land was granted to the first respondent on 29.12.1959 by the Competent Authority in accordance with the Rules prevailing at the time of such grant. The condition of non-alienation clause as embodied in Rule 43-A(3), which was applicable at the time of the grant, prescribed that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years if it is a free grant and if it is for an upset price, the land shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years from the date of the grant. In this case, the land was granted on 29.12.1959 and the granted land was alienated by the grantee on 24.8.1977. That means that the alienation had taken place after a period of 18 years from the date of the grant. Even at the risk of repetition, it has to be observed that the period of prohibition with regard to the transfer commences only from the date of the grant. That being so, it has to be stated that in the present case, the alienation has taken place after the expiry of the period of 15 years and as such, the transaction in question cannot be declared as null and void under Section 4 of the Act as, in this case, there was no contravention of the terms of the grant.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1