Ni.Pra Channabasava ... vs C.P.Kaveeramma & Ors

3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.

The appellant claims to be the Mathadhipati of the religious institution called Kannada Muth. The dispute relates to certain lands which were granted as Jagir lands by the ruler of Koorg in 1809. The lands were allotted in favour of the predecessor of the respondents. The lands were Inam lands and the Imams stood abolished on the enactment of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (in short the `Act'). Upon abolition of Inams, the lands stood vested with the State free from encumbrances. Since the Act is one of agrarian reform and the purpose of the Act is to benefit the original holders of the land, the holders i.e. Inamdars or their tenants were given right to claim re-grant of the land. An application was made by the institution for re-grant of the land under the Act. The respondents namely the erstwhile mortgagees also sought for re-grant of the land. Their claim was rejected and the land was granted in favour of the Mathadhipati by the competent authority and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Since the occupancy certificate was not being granted, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the nature of writ of mandamus and subsequently occupancy certificate was granted. Appellant claimed that he 2 was put in possession by the competent authority under the Act. The respondents claimed that by virtue of the order of re-grant in favour of the appellant, the earlier mortgage was revived and Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to deliver possession to the appellant. The order of the Tahsildar for delivery of possession was quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 43 does not apply and respondents 1 to 5 cannot canvas the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel. According to him, their stand was that Section 43 has no application to the facts of the case because the primary requisite of fraud or erroneous representation which is essential ingredient for invoking Section 43 is absent. The High Court held that Section 4(2)(b) does not expressly or impliedly provide that after re-grant the encumbrance created would not get revived. Under the said provision the land after passing of the Act shall stand vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and the transferees cannot enforce their contractual rights against the Government. The High Court felt that Section 4(2)(b) is silent with regard to contractual rights of the alienee after re-grant in respect of alienation validly created prior to vesting in favour of the Government. Therefore, with reference to Section 43 of the TP Act it was held that it is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, as noted above Writ Appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed while that filed by the respondents was allowed. 4

Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.

9. The appeals are allowed.