Case Analysis Of Harishchandra Hegde V. State Of Karnataka (2004)
Citation: Harishchandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 780

Facts
The Karnataka government handed two acres of land to Smt Gangamma on or around January 5, 1961. On September 13, 1962, the appellant reportedly paid a significant sum for the right to acquire the land mentioned above from the seller through a recorded sale deed for valuable consideration. Beginning on January 1, 1979, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, went into effect.

Due to Section 4 of the Act, all alienations done in violation of the conditions of the grant were deemed null and illegal. Under Section 5 of the Act, all such lands were recovered and returned to the original grantee. The original grantee applied for the start of a process under Section 4 of the Act on or around 11.9.1986; as a result, the proceeding was started against the appellant. On 29.5.1987, the Assistant Commissioner issued a restoration order for the land in favour of the first grantee 29.5.1987.

On March 25, 1889, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, likewise denied. The appellant then filed a writ petition, designated as Writ petition No. 23216 of 1990, asking the Court to declare that any order made by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act to restore specific property would be subject to the transferee's right to recover the value of the improvements per Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The learned single judge rejected the writ mentioned above petition. Due to an order from 16.2.1996, the appellant's writ appeal was dismissed. Whether Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act applied to situations covered by Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act) was a crucial legal issue that was brought up in this case.

The Act's Sections 4 and 5 dealt with the restriction of the transfer of awarded lands and the return of granted lands, respectively. To help and support the ST/SC communities economically, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was passed with the goals outlined in the preamble of the Constitution and the guiding principles of state policy. If it is determined that any land transfer occurred in contravention of the grant's terms, the state is authorised by the Act's provisions to retake the property and return it to the grantees.

Such a resumption order must be granted to minimise needless delay or prolong the procedures. In this instance, the transferee has cultivated the land that was given. Now, vide Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as:
"When the transferee of immovable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he is entitled to that, and he subsequently evicted from that place by any person having a better title, the transferee has a right to require the person causing the eviction either to have the value of the improvement estimated and paid or secured to the transferee or to sell interest in the property to transferee at the then market value thereof, irrespective of the value of such improvement."

Nevertheless, under Section 4 and Section 5 of the other Act, the transfer was illegal, and the transferee has no right in the granted lands so transferred. Therefore, this conflict became a question of law before the Court in this case.

Issues

1. Applicability of Section 4 and Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
2. Will a personal law prevail or a general law?
3. The pertinence of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?

Law
Statutes
Transfer Of Property Act 1882
The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
The Transfer Of Property Act 1882

Section 51
Improvements made by bona fide holders under defective titles. When the transferee of immoveable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he is entitled to that, and he is subsequently evicted from that place by any person having a better title, the transferee has a right to require the person causing the eviction either to have the value of the improvement estimated and paid or secured to the transferee or to sell his interest in the property to the transferee at the then market value thereof irrespective of the value of such improvement.

The amount to be paid or secured for such improvement shall be the estimated value at the time of the eviction. When under the circumstances aforesaid, the transferee has planted or sown on the property crops which are growing when he is evicted from that place, he is entitled to such crops and to free ingress and egress to gather and carry them.

The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
Section 4
Prohibition of transfer of granted lands

1. Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.
2. No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the prior permission of the Government.
3. The provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall also apply to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or any award or order of any other authority.

Section 5
Resumption and restitution of granted lands:

1. Where, on application by any interested person or on the information given in writing by any person or suo-motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of section 4, he may:
   
   1. by order to take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard;
   2. restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such a grantee or legal heir, it shall be deemed vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes per the rules relating to the land grant.

1 [(1A) After an enquiry referred to in subsection (1), the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is not null and void, pass an order accordingly.]1

Analysis
There was a contradiction between Section 4,5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act and Section 51 of the TPA in the case of Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka and Others. According to the Court, the Transfer of Property Act is a general law. However, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was passed to help safeguard impoverished populations (SC, ST). The former will thus win.

Tribal places struggle with unique issues. Historically, members of these communities have been the less powerful groups in society. They require the protection of the law because they are trusting and easily duped by dishonest individuals. Because of their innocence, poverty, and historical backwardness, they are vulnerable to exploitation.

The purpose of the Indian Constitution and the 1956 Regulations is to ensure that a member of an indigenous tribe retains ownership of the property he acquires and that every legal procedure for transferring title to real estate should be limited in its application to tribal members so that, even if one tribal member acquires real estate from another, the title will remain in the original tribal member.

This serves to safeguard the interests of those who are a part of tribal groups. The Court additionally believed that a transfer by operation of law was not included in the transfer described in Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Transfer of Property Act, essentially a general law, would only apply if a separate act handles the topic. The transfer of property by operation of law has been forbidden by Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882. This Act's application is constrained because it exclusively addresses transfers between two people and excludes all other transfer forms.

Nothing in the Act shall apply to transfers made by legal procedures or court orders, according to Section 2(d). According to the clause in Section 2(d), if the Transfer of Property Act's provisions clashes with any other laws, the other laws would take precedence. The specifics and goals of the particular laws are for a specific reason and deal with specialised regions. Thus, the specific laws have replaced the Transfer of Property Act, a general law governing all ordinary property transfer circumstances.

Conclusion
The Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka case is one of the key rulings in this area. In this instance, Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act contradicted certain portions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act.

The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, according to the Court, was passed to protect the interests of a specific group within society. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe needed to be supported and protected. Thus, the Act above was approved per the Directive Principles of State Policy. As a result, it had the characteristics of a unique act. The rules of a general act would thus not apply to such an act. As a result, the circumstances in this instance were not covered by Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Kartik Tripathi

Authentication No: JU353012951665-13-0623