M. Yashwanth Shenoy vs Muniyappa (Dead) By Lrs. .

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7872 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6697 of 2008]

M. Yashwanth Shenoy .. Appellant(s)

Versus

Muniyappa (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. .. Respondent(s)

With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7873 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4352 of 2008]

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sukhbir Paul Kaur Date: 2015.09.22

1. Leave granted.

18:14:35 IST Reason: 2

2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated

8.6.2007 rendered by the High Court of Karnataka at

Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3901 of 2005, whereby the

Division Bench in a common judgment affirmed the

decision of the learned single Judge by dismissing the

writ appeals. The appellants herein are prior and

subsequent purchasers of the subject property.

3. The facts in brief are summarized as follows: One

Venugopala Swamy son of Muniyappa filed an

application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, before the Assistant

Commissioner, Bangalore North, stating that his father

Muniyappa belonged to scheduled caste and he was

granted 1 Acre 13 Guntas of land in Survey No.69 and 27

Guntas of land in Survey No.70 of Tubarahalli Village,

Varthur Hobli, Bangalore during 1961 in Darkasth and

Muniyappa sold the granted lands to Ramaiah Reddy by

sale deed dated 9.10.1967 and he repurchased the same

under sale deed dated 13.7.1972 and again he has sold 3

the same in favour of appellant Yashwanth Shenoy and

the alienation being in violation of the conditions of

grant, it has to be declared as void.

4. The Assistant Commissioner held an inquiry and after

hearing the parties by order dated 26.3.1999 held that

the transfer of the granted lands at the first instance by

sale deed dated 9.10.1967, is in violation of the terms of

grant and the sale deed as well as the subsequent sale

deeds are illegal and void and declared that the lands be

resumed to the State and restored to the original grantee

Muniyappa under Section 5(1) of the Act. The appellant

Yashwanth Shenoy preferred appeal before the Special

Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and the appellate

authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 27.2.2004.

The appellant Yashwanth Shenoy challenged the said

order in Writ Petition No.17842 of 2004 on the file of the

High Court of Karnataka. Meanwhile the legal heirs of the

grantee Muniyappa filed suit for partition in O.S.No.

4981 of 1999 and the suit is still pending. They also got

impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. The 4

learned single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed

the writ petition by order dated 30.11.2005. Aggrieved by

the same, appellant Yashwanth Shenoy preferred appeal

in writ appeal no.3901 of 2005 and obtained interim

order of stay dated 23.1.2006 subject to the condition

that the appellant shall not make any construction in the

land. He executed Deed of Relinquishment dated

20.1.2007, relinquishing his right and interest in the

granted lands in favour of the original grantee

Muniyappa. On the same day Muniyappa sold the said

lands to the other appellant herein Subramanya and he

was also impleaded as respondent in the writ appeal.

5. The Division Bench heard Writ Appeal No.3901 of 2005

along with another appeal in Writ Appeal No.151 of 2006

preferred by the legal representatives of the original

grantee pertaining to the order passed in mutation

proceedings of which we are not concerned in the present

appeals. By common judgment dated 8.6.2007 Division

Bench dismissed both the writ appeals. Challenging the 5

order of dismissal in Writ appeal No.3901 of 2005 the

present appeals have been preferred.

6. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant Yashwanth Shenoy contended that the

appellant by filing memo sought for withdrawal of the

writ appeal but the High Court erroneously declined

permission. It is his further submission that the said

appellant has relinquished his right and interest in the

property in favour of the original grantee Muniyappa and

he has nothing to pursue in the matter and the refusal of

permission is bad in law. The learned counsel appearing

for legal heirs of the deceased appellant Subramanya

contended that the grantee Muniyappa obtained prior

permission of the Government as stipulated under the

Act and executed the sale deed for valid sale

consideration and he is a bonafide purchaser of the

granted land and he cannot be non-suited on the ground

that the sale deed was executed during the pendency of

the writ appeal and the impugned judgment is liable to

be set aside.

6

7. Per contra the learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents contended that the sale of the granted land

at the first instance was in violation of the terms and

conditions of the grant and the authorities have rightly

declared all the sale deeds as void and the High Court

has confirmed the finding and the impugned judgment

does not call for any interference.

8. The lands in question are granted lands in favour of the

original grantee Muniyappa is not in dispute. The said

grant is attached with the terms and conditions including

non-alienation condition for a period of 15 years from the

grant. The date of grant is 1.10.1961 and the grantee

Muniyappa sold the granted land by sale deed 9.10.1967

to Ramaiah Reddy. The first alienation had taken place

in utter violation of the terms of grant. It is a fact that

Rama Reddy in turn sold the granted land in favour of

grantee Muniyappa on 13.7.1972 and thereafter

Muniyappa had sold the granted lands in favour of

appellant Yashwanth Shenoy by sale deeds dated 7

23.3.1988 and 30.10.1991 without obtaining permission

from the State Government. The original authority under

S.C and S.T. (PTCL) Act and the appellate authority

declared the above sale deeds as null and void under

Section 5(1) of the Act and the said factual finding was

upheld by the learned single Judge as well as the

Division Bench of the High Court.

9. Appellant Yashwanth Shenoy challenged the order of the

Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal and also

obtained stay of the order of resumption and restoration

and when the appellate authority dismissed the appeal,

he further challenged the said order by preferring a writ

petition. The legal heirs of grantee Muniyappa

impleaded themselves as respondents in the writ petition

and brought to the notice of the court the pendency of

partition suit filed by them against Muniyappa. After the

dismissal of the writ petition on merits, appellant

Yashwanth Shenoy preferred writ appeal and the Division

Bench granted order of stay of resumption and

restoration on 23.1.2006 on condition that the appellant 8

shall not make any construction in the granted land.

During pendency of the writ appeal, while the stay order

was in force, the said appellant executed deed of

relinquishment dated 20.1.2007 abondoning his right

and interest in the granted lands in favour of grantee

Muniyappa, who was a party to the writ appeal. On the

same day, viz. on 20.1.2007 grantee Muniyappa sold the

granted land in favour of the present appellant

Subramanya. The Division Bench after highlighting the

above factors have held that there was collusion between

the appellants and grantee Muniyappa and on that

ground refused permission to appellant Yashwanth

Shenoy for withdrawal of the writ appeal. The High Court

has dismissed the memo for withdrawal by assigning the

valid reasons and we are unable to persuade ourselves to

accept the contention made by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the said appellant.

10. Muniyappa, a respondent in the writ appeal executed

sale deed on 20.1.2007 in respect of granted lands in

favour of present appellant Subramanya, while stay of 9

resumption and restoration order of granted land was in

force and at that time he did not possess any right upon

the said land either to make an application before the

State Government under Section 4(2) of the Act seeking

its permission to alienate the same or to transfer the

lands. It is pertinent to mention that the authorities

were also respondents in the writ appeal. In such

circumstances as rightly held by the Division Bench, the

grant of permission to transfer is also bad in law.

Moreover, no valid reasons were assigned in the said

order. We are in complete agreement with the views

expressed in the impugned judgment.

11. The civil appeals are devoid of merit and they are

dismissed. No costs.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan) New Delhi;

September 22, 2015.

10

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.10 SECTION IVA (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No. 7872 of 2015 arising out of Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6697/2008

M. YASHWANTH SHENOY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MUNIYAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal No. 7873 of 2015 arising out of SLP(C) No. 4352/2008

Date : 22/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s) Ms. A. Sumathi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.

Ms. Priya Aristotle,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.

[INDU POKHRIYAL] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)