RUDRANI

WARAD

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SATYAN ....PETITIONERS

V.

DY COMMISSIONER & ORS ....RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................4

ISSUED RAISED................................................................................................................5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS........................................................................................6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................7

PRAYER.............................................................................................................................12

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
 Constitution Of India, 1950
 Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978
 Limitation Act, 1963

RULES
 The Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969

CASES
 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196
 Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
 Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC
186
 Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
 Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
 City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143
 Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253
 Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. v. Hari Kishore Yadav, (2018) 12 SCC 527
 Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492

3
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of Hon’ble Court, the facts pertinent to the instant case
are summarized as follows:

1. The Karnataka State Government granted agricultural lands free of charge to the members
of SC and ST community to provide them an opportunity for self-employment through
agriculture. But these grants came with certain restrictions relating to transfer as mentioned
in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978
2. Under this scheme, On 12 the August 1982, the Respondents No. 3 (8 persons) were made
beneficiaries and two acres of land was granted to each one in Bannikuppe Village, rural
Bangalore.
3. In August and September 1997, various sale deeds were executed by the private respondents
in favor of the Appellant through an attorney who is Appellant’s Wife. The consideration
for the same was paid in cash.
4. In 2005, villagers filled an application alleging that the sale deeds were illegal as they were
executed without prior permission of the competent authority.
5. On inquiry, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 5th May 2006 and set aside the
sale deeds and directed the Appellant to restore the lands to the original allottees. He
preferred an appeal to Deputy Commissioner who dismissed it. He further went to the High
Court of Karnataka and a Single Judge dismissed the petition, further writ appeal against the
same has been dismissed.
6. Now, the Appellant has preferred a Special Leave Petition under Article 136.

4
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I
Whether the Special Leave Petition is Maintainable Before the Honourable Court?

ISSUE II
Whether the Transfers Made to the Appellant are Null and Void?

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE COURT.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is no necessity
or compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and invoking its powers under Article
136. The Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the High Court of Karnataka have
appropriately dealt with the matter in interest of Justice. The SLP is not a matter of right and should
be invoked only when all other remedies are exhausted.

THAT THE TRANSFERS MADE TO THE APPELLANT ARE NULL AND VOID

It is humbly submitted that the transfer of the land granted to the beneficiaries by the Karnataka
State Government to anyone has to previously take permission from the government. The
Appellant in the present case fails to take appropriate permissions from the concerned authority
and hence by virtue of the Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 the transfer is null and void.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE COURT.

Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but, a discretionary power to the Supreme Court to
be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional circumstances1. In Pritam
Singh v. The State2 , the Supreme Court held that the power under Article 136 is to be exercised
sparingly and in exceptional cases only. This very court in that matter held that ‘Generally
speaking, this court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question
presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.’

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the present case there exist no exceptional and
special circumstances and there was no error in the judgement of the High Court and the order of
the Deputy Commissioner. In fact, all the forums found that the evidence submitted by the
appellant indicating prior permission for execution of sale deeds was forged and fabricated. And
separate criminal proceedings are also pending against him for the same. The counsel would also
like to submit to this Hon’ble Court that there is no pressing matter or question of law, for which,
the intervention of this Court would be necessary, i.e. there is no necessity to invoke the
jurisdiction conferred upon this Hon’ble Court under Article 136.

The Supreme Court has exercised its Jurisdiction under Article 136 under the following
circumstances-
(i) When the Tribunal ostensibly fails to exercise its patent jurisdiction.3
(ii) When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision4 .
(iii) The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence 5

1
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196
2
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3
Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC 186
4
Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
5
Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
7
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
(iv) The tribunal acts against the principles of Natural Justice6, or has approached the question in
a manner likely to cause injustice7

Here, in the present case, the Assistant Commissioner was well within its jurisdiction to decide the
sale deeds null and void. Further, the Dy Commissioner and the High Court appropriately applied
the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Clearly, there
has been no error of law or anything against the principles of Natural Justice for the Honourable
Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Art. 136.

B. THAT THE TRANSFERS MADE TO THE APPELLANT ARE NULL AND VOID

In the present case, the state government granted two acres of land each to the private respondents
in August 1982 to assist them in their economic development and to provide for an opportunity for
self-employment through agriculture. And this land was purchased by the Appellant vide different
sale deeds in August and September 1997. When such land is granted to the beneficiaries, there is
a restriction related to the transfer of the same land as given in section 4 of 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 previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution
of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.

6
City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143
7
Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253
8
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
The subsection 2 of the said section absolutely bars any transfer made without the previous
permission of the government. Further, to prove that the Appellant has adequate permission from
the government to executive the sale deeds, he submitted forged and fabricated documents to the
court as evidence. Criminal proceedings about the same are pending.

According to Rule (9) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969,

Conditions of Grant:- (1) The grant of lands under these rules (for agricultural purposes) shall
be subject to the following conditions namely:-
(i) the grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of fifteen years from the date of taking
possession:
Provided that he may, after a period of five years, with the previous permission of, and subject
to the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 2 of 1979), and such conditions as may
be specified by the Deputy Commissioner, alienate the whole or any portion of such land. But
however, the Deputy Commissioner shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that
the alienation is for the purpose of acquiring other land or for improving the remaining land
and the grantee credits to Government an amount equal to fifty percent of the market value of
such land as on the date of sanction of such alienation as determined by the Deputy
Commissioner:
Provided that no person who has obtained permission to alienate land under the rule shall,
notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 4 be eligible for grant of any Government Land."

The counsel submits that, in the sale deeds the land owners were represented through an attorney
who is Appellant’s Wife and the entire amount was paid in cash. Further, the General Power of
Attorney (GPA) bears the date 16th December 1996 which is before the expiry of 15 years.
Therefore, the nature of transaction was such that it has occurred prior to fifteen-year period, even
if the sale deed was executed after 15 years.

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Appellant has executed the sale deeds in August and September 1997, which is 15 years after
the government has granted the beneficiaries the land. Even if the clause 9 of the rules is interpreted
in a way that permission of the government authorities for the transfer is required only in the period
between 5 years to 15 years and not after the period of 15 years. It has to be noted that the Act
prevails over the rules as it came into force subsequently. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner’s
decision to declare the transfers null and void was appropriate.

In the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. v. Hari Kishore Yadav8 it was held that, where no
period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the
application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time
would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute.

Here, the villagers made an application on 10th October 2005 against the appellant which
triggered an inquiry of the transactions in questions. Here, upon inquiry the assistant
commissioner set aside the sale deeds and directed restoration of lands back to the original
allottees. Here, we have to understand that objective of the Act9 which provided a clause for
the non-alienation, when it already existed in the Rules10. The act incorporated non-alienation
clause because the clause in the Rules was found to be inadequate to protect the interests of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who were given land owing to their ignorance and
poverty. Influential and powerful sections of society were stated to be obtaining sales and
mortgages for consideration, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes became victims of
circumstances. The objective of the act therefore, was to prevent such misuse and therefore
conditions regarding prior permission of transfer was prescribed.

Hence, the decision of the Assistant Commissioner to declare the sale deeds null and void and
the decisions of the Dy Commissioner and High Court to dismiss the appeal against the order
of Assistant Commissioner were appropriate in the interest of Justice.

8
Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. v. Hari Kishore Yadav, (2018) 12 SCC 527
9
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
10
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969
10
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
In the case of Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee it was held that
‘Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not interfere
with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by the tribunal and the High Court unless there
is a clear error of law or unless some important piece of evidence has been omitted from
consideration’11

Hence, it is humbly submitted that this Honorable Court need not have to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the High Courts.

11
Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
11
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 PRAYER

Wherefore , in the light of facts stated , issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities cited ,
it most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The SPL is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Court

2. The sale deeds executed in favour of the Appellant are null and void

And/Or

Pass any other order or grant any other relief in favour of defence , which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and conscience. All of which is most respectfully prayed
and submitted.

Date:

Place: New Delhi

Sd/-

Counsel

for Respondent

12
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS