N. VENKATESHAPPA versus MUNEMMA & ORS.
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 973, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 973 
N. VENKATESHAPPA 
v .. 
MUNEMMA & ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!Nos.135!-!352of2016) 
FEBRUARY 15,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 - ss. 2(a), 4(3), 5, 6, 7 -
Re-grant of Inam land in favour ofalienor - Right of an alienee -
On facts, agricultural land was Thalavari Inamthi land in the hands 
of original owners - Alienation of Inam 1and by sale deed dated 
13.05.1971, in favour of N-alienee and he was put in possession of 
the land - Re-grant of land in favour of alienorlholder of office on 
31.03.1982 in terms of the Act - Re-grant proceedings attained 
finality - Eviction of alienee from the land - Right of alienee upon 
re-grant of land in favour of alienor - Held: Upon re-grant of the 
land in favour of the holder of a Inam land, re-grant must enure to 
the benefit of the alieitee, if such alienation was between OJ.02J963 
and 07.08.1978 i.e. between the period of appointed date and the 
date when the _;Jmendment Act came into force - Upon such-re-
grant, the title of a holder of the fnam land would relate back to the 
date. of coming into force of the Act - Alienation effected by them, 
by principles of 'feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the 
benefit of the alienee who would get good title to such land after 
such re-grant - Alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. As laid-down in *Laks'1ma11a Gowda and **Syed 
Bhasheer A flamed, upon re-grant of the
laud in favour of the holder 
of a Service-loam, the re-grant must enure to the benefit of the 
alienee, if such alienatio'n was between 01.02.1963 and 
07.08.1978. Further, upo'! such re-grant, the title of a holder of 
the Service_-inam land would relate back. to the .date of coming 
. into force of the Act. In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the 
title of the predecessors of the respondents would relate back. 
The alienation effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of 
"feeding the grant by estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the 
alienee who would get good iitle to such land after such re-grant. 
973 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A Where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 
07.08.1978 the alienee would not be "unauthorized holder". In 
the circumstances, the Tehsildar was not competent to initiate 
proceedings for eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village 
Offices Act, 1961 against the alienee, namely, the predecessor-
B 
c 
D 
in-interest of the appellant. The judgment and orders of the High 
Court are set aside and that of the trial court as affirmed by the 
appellate court is restored. [Paras 15, 16] [978-E-H; 979-A-B] 
*Laksh111a11a Gowda v. State of Karna/aka (1981) 1 
Karnataka Law Journal 1; **Syed Bhasheer Ahamed 
v. State of Karnataka 1994 (1) KLJ 385 - approved. 
Case Law Reference 
(1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1 
approved 
1994 (1.) KLJ 385 
approved 
Paras 14, 15 
Paras 14, 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 35 l-
1352 of2016. 
from the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 and 01.06.2011 
of the High Court ofKarnataka in RSA No. 323 of2008 and in Review 
Petition No. 4 76of2010. 
E 
Sampat Anand Shetty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the 
F 
G 
H 
Appellant. 
S. N. Bhat, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT J. I. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 
in Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011 
passed in R.P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at 
Bangalore. 
3. The Karnataka
Village Offices Act, 1961 abolishes village 
offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the 
Constitution oflndia. The appointed date under Section 2(a) of the Act 
is 01.02.1963. Section 4 of the Act abolishes all village offices on and 
with effect from the appointed date and sub-section (3) of Section 4 
stipulates that subjectto the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 land annexed
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS. 
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
975 
to a village office shall stand resumed and be subject to the payment of A 
land revenue as if it were unalienated land or ryotwari land. Section 5 
of the Act lays down that the lands so resumed under Section 4(3) of the 
Act and not falling under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act be granted to the 
person who were holders of the village offices ;rnmediately prior to the 
appointed date on such payment as prescribed. Sections 6 and 7 of the 
Act lay down that if the land so resumed is held by an authorized holder 
it shall be re-granted to such holder on payment of occupancy price as 
prescribed. 
4. The Act was amended by Act No.13 of 1978 which inter alia 
inserted Section 5( 4) as under:-
"5( 4) Any transfer ofland in contravention of sub-section (3) shall 
be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be 
forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all 
encumbrances and any person· in possession thereof shall be 
summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner and 
the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the law applicable 
to the disposal ofunoccupicd unalienated lands: 
Provided that if the person who has transferred the land in 
contravention of sub-section (3) is not alive, while disposing of 
such land, preference shall be given to the heirs of such person. 
Explanation.-For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that 
in sub-section (3), and in this
sub-section transfer includes creation 
of a lease." 
Section 7 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act now 
reads as under: 
"7. Eviction of unauthorised holders etc.-
( I) Where any land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 is in 
B 
c 
D. 
E 
F 
the possession of an unauthorised holder such unauthorised holder 
shall be summarily evicted therefrom and the land shall be taken 
possession of by the Deputy Commissioner i11 accordance with 
G 
law: Provided that no such summary eviction shall be made except 
after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of niaking 
representation. 
(2) Any order of eviction pas'sed under sub-sectiQn (I) shall be 
final and shall not be questioned in any court oflaw and no injunction 
H
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
sh al I be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken 
or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of 
the power conferred by sub-section (I). 
B 
c 
(3) The land from which an unauthorised holder is evicted under 
sub-section (I) shall,-
(a) if it was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to an 
inferior village office be re-granted to the holder of such village 
office; and 
(b) in other cases be disposed of in accordance with the law 
applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands." 
5. In Lakslimana Gowda v. State of Karnataka', Division Bench 
of the High Court had an occasion to consider questions including one 
concerning rights of an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or 
the authorized holder. It dealt with various issues but the one concerning 
the present matter was Question No. (iii) which was to the following 
D effect: 
"(iii) Did an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the 
authorized holder, acquire title to such land, ifthe alienation had 
taken place between the date of the coming into force of the 
Principal Act and the date of the re-grant, after its re-grant to its 
E 
holder or the authorized holder under Section S or 6, as the case 
may be, of the Principal Act? " 
F 
6. The answer to the aforesaid question was given in para 66 of 
the Judgment in the following words-: 
"Hence, our answer to the question is that if the holder or
the 
authorized holder of a Service lnam land had alienated it after the 
Principal Act came into force and before it was re-granted to him 
under Section Sor 6 of the Principal Act, the alienee acquired a 
title to that land after such re-grant to his aliener." 
7. During the course of its discussion concerning the aforesaid 
G question, it was also observed:-
"We have already held that though the holder or the authorized 
holder of a Service lnam Land got title to such land only when it 
was actually re-granted to him under S. S or 6 of the Principal 
H ' ( 1981 ) I Kamataka Law Journal I
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS. 
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
' -·- -
Act, such title related back to the date of coming into force of that 
Act. From this, it would follow that if he purported to alienate 
such land before it was re-granted to him, but after the Principal 
Act came into force, the doctrine offeeding the grant by estoppels 
embodied in S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, would apply 
and the title he subsequently acquired on such re-grant of that 
land, would ensure to the benefit of his alienee, who would get a 
good title to such land after such re-grant to his alienor." 
8. The aforesaid view in Lakshmana Gowtfal was affirmed by 
Full Bench of the High Court in Syed Blwsheer Ahamed v. State of 
Karnatakal. While considering the rights of an alienee under an 
alienation made between 01.02.1963 and 07.08-1978 i.e. between the 
period of the appointed date and the date when the Amendment Act 
came into force, the Ful.1 Bench in para 30 (f) of its judgment observed 
as under:-
"There is no provision in the Act authorizing the State Government 
or its authorities to evict an alienee under an alienation made 
between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978. Section 7 is not applicable, as 
such an alienee is not an 'unauthorised holder'. If the land 
. alienated between 1-2- I 963 and 7-8-1978, is subsequently re-
granted to the alienor, the benefit of such re-grant, namely, title 
will enure to the benefit of the alienee. If the land is not re-granted 
to the alienor, but to
someone else on the ground that the alien or is 
not a 'holder' or 'authorised holder', then the alienee will be in the 
position of a transferee from a person without any title; and the 
grantee to whom the re-grant is made, will be entitled to obtain 
possession from the alienee and the limitation for such grantee to 
dispossesses the alienee will commence from the date of re-
grant." 
9.Agricultural land bearing Survey No.83 ofHoshalli Village, Kolar 
District, Karnatakaadmeasuring 3 acres 3.9 guntaswas Thalavari Jnamthi 
land in the hands of original Baruvardars named Muni Papanna and his 
father Narasappa. Said Muni Papanna and Narasappa sold this land 
under registered sale deed dated 13 .05.1971 in favourof one Nadumpalli 
Muneppa. Pursuant to the sale deed, the alienee was put in possession 
of the land. The land in question was re-granted in favour of Muni 
Papanna on 31.03. I 982. This was challenged in appeal and the matter 
21994 (I) KLJ 385 
977 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
978 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
stood remitted to the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, fresh 
re-grant proceedings were taken up and the land was re-granted in favour 
of said Muni Papanna and two others. The re-grant in favour of those 
two others was challenged by Muni Papanna which challenge was 
allowed and the re-grant was confirmed in favour of Muni Papanna 
alone. Those proceedings attained finality and became conclusive. 
I 0. Original SuitNo.19 of2004 was filed by the present appellant, 
being the successor-in- interest ofNadumpalli Muneppa i.e. the alienee 
in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Srinivaspuri, District Kolar. 
It was submitted that after the re-grant in favour of the original holder, 
by virtue of the judgments of the High Court ofKarnataka as mentioned 
C" herein above, the plaintiff was entitled to the land in question. It was 
further submitted that the defendants namely the wife and the children 
of Muni Papanna had however executed registered sale deeds in favour 
of defendants 5 and 6 and that they were seeking to obstruct the 
possession of the plaintiff. With these assertions, the plaintiff prayed for 
D 
declaration that he be declared absolute owner of the land in question 
and also prayed for appropriate permanent injunction restraining the 
defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. 
E 
F 
11. All the defendants filed common written statement. It was not 
disputed that there was
alienation in favour of the predecessor of the 
plaintiff on 28.05.1971 but it was submitted that in proceedings initiated 
byTehsildar under Section 7 of the Act, an orderofeviction was passed 
against the alienee and that the alienee was evicted from the land on 
24.09.1981. It was thus submitted that on re-grant in favour of Muni 
Papanna, the benefit must accrue to the heirs of said Papanna alone and 
that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in land in question. 
12. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 12.02.2007 
accepted the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Relying on the 
decisions in Lakslmuma Gowda and Syed B/wsheer Alwmetl it was 
observed that the alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08. I 978 was 
not invalid and that the land having been re-granted in favour of Muni 
G 
Papanna, the alienee can certainly claim the benefit by doctrine offeeding 
the grant by estoppel in view of the re-grant of land in favour of the 
alienor/holder of the office under Section 5( I) or 6 of the Act and the 
subsequent sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 would 
therefore be of no legal consequence. The suit was decreed declaring 
H 
the plaintiff to be absolute owner.
N. VENKATESHAPPA v. MUNEMMA & ORS. 
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
13. The aforesaid decision of the Trial Court was challenged before 
the Principal District Judge Kolar in Regular Appeal No.163 of2007. 
The lower Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court 
and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and.order dated 05.01.2008. 
The respondents carried the matter further by filing Second Appeal 
. No.323 of2008 which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 
27.07.2010. It was observed by the High Court that the alienee having 
been evicted from the land on 24.09 .1981, as tin the date when re-grant 
was ordered, the possession was not thafofthe alienee and as such the 
courts below were not justified in relying upon the decisions of the High . 
Court Laksltman,a Gowdll and Syed Bltaslteer Alwmed case. The 
review petition preferred by the present appellant was rejected by the 
High Court vide order dated 1.06.2011 . 
. 1.4. We have heard Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Advocate 
for the appel !ant an Cl Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Advocate for the respondents 
and ha,ve gone through the record and considered the rival submissions. 
The law on the point as to the rights of an alienee of an Inam land where 
the alienation had occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 stands 
settled by the decisions in LllkslmUma Gowda (supra) and Syed 
Bltaslteer Altamed (supra). 
15. As laid-down in these cases, upon re-grant of the land in 
favour of the holder of a Service-Inam,
the re-grant must enure to the 
benefit of the alienee, if such alienation was between 01.02.1963 and 
07 .08.1978. Further, upon such re-grant, the title of a holder of the 
Service-inam land would relate back to the date of coming into force 
of the Act. 
In the circumstances, upon re-grant, the title of the 
predecessors of the respondents herein would relate back. The alienation 
effected by them on 13.05.1971, by principles of"feeding the grant by 
estoppel" would enure to the benefit of the alienee who would get good 
title to such land after such re-grant. As observed by the Full-Bench, 
where the alienation occurred between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 the 
alienee would not be '..'unauthorized holder". In the circumstances, the 
Tehsildar was not competent to initiate proceedings for eviction under 
Section 7 of·the Act against the alienee, namely, the predecessor-in-
. interest of the present appellant. Both the Courts below were, therefore, 
right and justified in accepting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and the 
High Court was completely inerror in setting aside the concurrent view 
and allowing the second appeal. 
979 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
16. We, therefore, allow these appeals. The judgment and orders 
of the High Court under appeal are set aside and the judgment and 
decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.19 of 2004 as affirmed by 
the Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No.163 of2007 is restored. No 
orders as to costs. 
B 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals allo\ved.