Seethamma vs The State Of Karnataka

2026 INSC 457 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO..........OF 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.19635 of 2023]

Seethamma W/o Late Sathyappa ...Appellant Versus

The State of Karnataka & Ors.

...Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Leave granted.

2. Concurrent findings leading to the annulment of a

sale, under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1978’) is challenged

before us. All the authorities and the High Court found that

Section 4 of the Act postulates any transfer without previous

permission of the Government to be null and void. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

3. Sri Manjunath Meled, learned Counsel for the babita pandey Date: 2026.05.07 16:53:40 IST

appellant submits that the Act of 1978 is not applicable to the Reason:

Page 1 of 5 CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023

subject land. The grant itself was made in the year 1977 and

receipt issued in the year 1981. The first transfer was made

after 15 years and the appellant is a purchaser from the

transferee of the year 1997. Learned counsel for the

appellant relies on Shakuntala v. The State of Karnataka &

Others1.

4. Sri Avishkar Singhvi, learned Additional Attorney

General for the State relies on Satyan v. Deputy

Commissioner & Others2, Vivek M. Hinduja & Others v.

M. Ashwatha & Ors.3 and Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika &

Another4 to contend that the delay is only of 9 years and as

held in Satyan2, an 8 year period cannot said to be fatal to

an action taken under the Act by reason only of delay and

laches, especially considering the beneficial legislation for

ensuring preservation of lands of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes.

5. On facts suffice it to notice that the original vendor

obtained the land as per Annexure P1, in the year 1977 and

the grant certificate was issued in the year 1981. The grant

1 C.A. Nos. 1061-1063 of 2019 2 (2020) 14 SCC 210 3 (2020) 14 SCC 228 4 (2008) 14 SCC 517

Page 2 of 5 CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023 certificate is issued under Schedule E of the Land Revenue

Code, which prohibits alienation only for a period of 15

years; in the instant case from the year 1981-82. The first

transfer admittedly was made in the year 1997 as is evident

from Annexure P2. In the present case, the proceedings

were initiated in the year 2006-07, after the land came into

the possession of the appellant herein, by a purchase in the

year 2003.

6. Shakuntala1 relied on a number of judgments wherein

this Court had found that even if no limitation is prescribed

in the statute, the party concerned ought to have

approached the competent court or authority within a

reasonable time beyond which no relief could be granted.

Satyan2 was a case in which the grants were made to the

beneficiaries in August 1982 and the transfer was affected in

September 1997, after the 15 year period was over. Therein

the proceedings were initiated on the villagers filing an

application alleging the sale deeds to be illegal. This Court

found that the 8 year period delay in initiating proceedings

is not fatal to the proceedings initiated especially

considering the laudable intention behind the legislation.

Page 3 of 5 CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023 True in the present case also the delay is of 9 years but

however a pertinent distinction in facts have to be

necessarily noticed.

7. Going through the judgments cited by both the

parties, it is evident that proceedings initiated later, were

by the legal representatives of the original vendors. The Act

of 1978 no doubt is a beneficial legislation and seeks to

ensure protection of the lands conceded as grants by the

State to the members of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes communities, who could be enticed into

parting with their lands on one pretext or the other. The

distinguishing fact in the present case is that the persons

who initiated the proceedings included the sons of the

original grantee, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who

were also parties to the first transfer as evident from

Annexure P2. The 4th respondent at the time of the first

transfer was aged about 35 years and the 5th respondent was

aged about 25 years. The present case is not one where the

legal representatives, unaware of the earlier grant or the

subsequent transfer, having initiated proceedings after a

long delay, nor is it one of the village community having

Page 4 of 5 CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023 initiated proceedings against the illegal transfers. The

persons who sought invocation of the proceedings under

the Act of 1978 were party to the alienation in the year 1997,

after the 15 year period was over from the original grant of

the year 1977 and the issuance of the certificate in 1981. On

the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to set aside the

orders of the Authorities and the High Court finding the

proceedings to be illegal and we do so.

8. The above appeal is allowed setting aside the

impugned orders.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.....…….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

..……….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 07, 2026.

Page 5 of 5 CA @ SLP(C) No.19635 of 2023