2008 (2) TMI 897 - SC - Indian Laws

Land in question was a granted land or land purchased for a price at a public auction - Application for Cancellation of the sale deed and restoration of the land under the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ( the Act ), in the year 1981 - rejected - alienation after the expiry period of ten years of non-alienation clause and hence the sale transaction is not in violation of the condition governing grant and, therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act - Jurisdiction of the High Court for interference in a factual decision - HELD THAT - We have to see terms and conditions and recitals in the document and not the title alone. Though the document, according to the appellant, Certificate of Grant , perusal of the clauses therein, clearly shows that the land was sold on 04.03.1948 in a public auction and Motappa purchased the same for a price of ₹ 408.12. In addition to the recitals, the darkhast register extract produced as Annexure C before the High Court also shows that the land in question was sold for a price . Form I also indicates that the land in question was purchased and what was paid by the purchaser under the said document was the purchase price. In the light of the principles mentioned above and the terms and conditions in the recital clearly show that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price. Merely because the document has been styled or titled as Certificate of Grant , it cannot be construed that the land was a granted land attracting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner, the authorized authorities under the Act and Rules, on verification of the contents of the document coupled with Revenue extract rightly concluded that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price even in the year 1948. We have referred to the recitals in the document produced before the High Court which though titled as certificate of grant/Saguvali chit, various terms and conditions make it clear that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction on payment of a price for ₹ 408.12. In addition, the two authorities as well as the High Court adverted to the revenue extract and concluded that it was not a granted land and it was purchased in a public auction on payment of a price. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly refused to quash the orders of the said authorities and dismissed the writ petition. If the factual finding that the subject-matter of the land was a granted land undoubtedly it attracts bar under Section 4 of the Act and follow the conditions as stated in Rule 43 (1) (5) and (8). In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the mortgage and subsequent sale of the land.
2. Applicability of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
3. Interpretation of the nature of the land as "granted land" or "purchased for a price."
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the High Court in interfering with factual findings of lower authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the mortgage and subsequent sale of the land:
The land in question was initially allotted to the appellant's grandfather, Motappa, under the Mysore Land Grant Rules. Motappa mortgaged portions of the land in 1956 and 1959 to discharge previous debts. After the deaths of Motappa and the mortgagee, the appellant and another individual paid the mortgage amount and requested the discharge of the mortgage. However, the respondents claimed the land was sold to them, not mortgaged.

2. Applicability of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978:
The appellant contended that the land was "granted land" and thus protected under the Act, which prohibits the transfer of such lands without government permission. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the proceedings, stating the sale did not violate the non-alienation clause. The High Court remanded the case for fresh disposal, directing the Assistant Commissioner to examine the original grant records. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner both concluded the land was purchased in a public auction, not granted, and thus not subject to the Act.

3. Interpretation of the nature of the land as "granted land" or "purchased for a price":
The core issue was whether the land was "granted land" or purchased in a public auction. The authorities and the High Court examined the original records and concluded that the land was sold in a public auction in 1948 for a price of Rs. 408.12. The document titled "Certificate of Grant" was scrutinized, and it was determined that the land was purchased, not granted. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the recitals in the document and the conduct of the parties indicated a purchase, not a grant.

4. Jurisdiction and authority of the High Court in interfering with factual findings of lower authorities:
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of Certiorari can only be issued in cases where inferior courts or authorities act in excess of their jurisdiction or refuse to exercise jurisdiction, causing a grave miscarriage of justice. The High Court's role is not to reappreciate evidence or correct mere errors of fact. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's refusal to quash the orders of the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, as the factual findings were based on relevant materials and evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the land in question was purchased in a public auction and not "granted land." Consequently, the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, did not apply. The High Court's decision to uphold the orders of the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners was deemed appropriate, as no jurisdictional error or manifest injustice was found. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.