9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. 2. Validity of alienation of land by the petitioners. 3. Claim of adverse possession by the petitioners. Summary: Constitutionality of the Act: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, which prohibits the alienation of certain lands allotted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Validity of Alienation: The petitioners had purchased the property in 1962-63 and 1963-64 from the original allottees. The Government had allotted these lands with a prohibition on alienation. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, further prohibited such alienations. The authorities held that the alienation in favor of the petitioners was in violation of the rules and the Act, making the sales voidable. The Supreme Court affirmed that the title to the lands continued to remain with the State, and the grantees only had the right to possess and enjoy the lands subject to the conditions of the grant. Claim of Adverse Possession: The petitioners claimed that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners failed to plead and prove the necessary elements of adverse possession, such as asserting a hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner and remaining in possession without any let or hindrance. The Court emphasized that mere uninterrupted and continuous possession without the animus to continue in possession hostile to the rights of the real owner does not constitute adverse possession in law. The Court cited several precedents, including the cases of Lakshmi Reddy, State of West Bengal v. Dalhousie Institute Society, and Chandevarappa, to support its decision. The Court concluded that the petitioners did not establish their claim of adverse possession as they failed to plead the necessary facts and provide evidence of continuous and uninterrupted possession hostile to the true owner's rights. The plea of adverse possession was not proved, and the petitioners' claim was dismissed. Conclusion: The Civil Appeal was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the authorities and the High Court that the petitioners' claim of adverse possession was not substantiated, and the alienation of the lands was voidable under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
|
