Harish Chandra Hegde v.

State of Karnataka (2004)

9 SCC 780

INTRODUCTION

Property is one of the most important aspects of a person's life. The Transfer of Property Act was
designed to establish clear statutory guidelines for the transfer of property 1. The Act's preamble
makes it clear that it only applies to transfers performed by the act of parties. As a result, the Act
would not apply in circumstances where the transfer is made under another legislation. The Act
is also not applicable in situations when the provisions of a special law clash with those of the
Act. In Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka case, this was decided. It has been the
authority in situations involving disputes between special legislation and the Transfer of Property
Act since the decision in this case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Government of Karnataka granted two acres of land under Survey No. 134/110 to one Smt.
Gangamma on or about 1.5.1961. On 13.9.1962, the appellant purchased the aforementioned
land from her through a recorded sale document for a substantial consideration and allegedly
expended a significant amount of money in its development. With effect from January 1, 1979,
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act was enacted.2 All alienations committed in violation of the provisions of the grant were
declared void under Section 4 of the Act, and all such lands were reclaimed and restored to the
original grantee by Section 5 of the Act.

On or about 11.9.1986, the original grantee filed an application for the initiation of a proceeding
under Section 4 of the Act, and the proceeding was commenced against the appellant as a result.
On 29.5.1987, the Assistant Commissioner issued an order restoring the land to the original
grantee. The appellant filed an appeal with the Deputy Commissioner there, which was also
dismissed on March 25, 1989.

1
www.legalservicesindia.com
2
(2004) 9 SC 780
The appellant then filed a writ petition, numbered Writ petition No. 23216 of 1990, seeking a
declaration that any order issued by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act for
the restoration of land would be subject to the transferee's right to claim the value of the
improvements as prescribed by Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the aforementioned writ petition. The appellant's writ appeal
was also dismissed by an order dated 16.2.1996. The issue in this case was whether Section 51 of
the Transfer of Property Act applied to circumstances covered by Sections 4 and 5 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act. Section 4 of the aforementioned Act dealt with the prohibition of the transfer of lands
provided, while Section 5 dealt with the restitution of the lands awarded. The Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was
adopted with the goal of giving economic assistance and support to the ST/SC people, as stated
in the preamble of the Constitution, as well as the directive principles of state policy. Because of
the Act's provisions, the State has the authority to reclaim the land and return it to the grantees if
it is discovered that any transfer occurred in contravention of the terms of the grant.

Such a resumption order must be issued in order to avoid unnecessary delay or prolongation of
the proceedings. The transferee in this case has planted crops on the land that was given to them.
Now, according to Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, “When a transferee of immovable
property makes an improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he is absolutely
entitled to it, and is subsequently evicted by someone with a better title, the transferee has the
right to require the person causing the eviction to either estimate the value of the improvement
and pay or secure it to the transferee, or to sell inter alia the property to the transferee. ”However,
the transfer was illegal under Sections 4 and 5 of the other Act, and the transferee has no right to
the allotted lands so transferred.3 As a result, the court in this instance had to deal with this
contradiction as a legal issue.

3
(2004) 9 SC 780
 JUDGEMENT

Tribal areas face their unique set of issues. Historically, people who belonged to such societies
have been the weaker members of society. They require legal protection because they are naive
and fall prey to unscrupulous people's tactics, and they are vulnerable to exploitation due to their
innocence, poverty, and generations of backwardness4. The Constitution of India and the 1956
Regulations seek to ensure that a member of an aboriginal tribe indefatigably retains ownership
of the property that he acquires, and that every legal process by which title in immovable
property is extinguished in one person and vests in another remains so limited in its application
in relation to tribals that the immovable property is extinguished in one person and vests in
another. This is for the preservation of tribal community members' interests. The court went on to
say that the transfer described in Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act did not include
property transfers through operation of law. Because the topic is handled by a separate act, the
Transfer of Property Act, which is essentially a general statute, would not apply in this case.

4
(2004) 9 SC 780