Author : WASILA, 1ST YR. BA.LLB. (HONS.) SHARDA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW JUNE 2024
Abstract
The case of Harish Chandra Hegde Vs. The State of Karnataka dealt with the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to special legislations, especially to the Castes and Tribes of Karnataka (Prohibition of Transfer). Certain Lands Act, 1978. The dispute arose over the transfer of land on terms which may have violated the latter Act, which was intended to protect SC/ST communities from exploitation. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1978 Act cancelled such transfers and required restitution to the original grants. The applicant, who made improvements to the land in good faith in accordance with section 51 of the Transfer of Property Law, demanded compensation or retention of the land. The court ruled that the specific provisions of the 1978 Act prevailed over the general Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the Act’s role in protecting vulnerable communities and limiting the application of general property law in such contexts. That case established the supremacy of special defence legislation over general property transfer laws in the event of a conflict.
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. 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 Actis 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
Government of Karnataka handed over two acres of land to Smt. on or about 5th January 1961, the appellant is said to have paid a large sum at Gangamma on or about 13th September 1962 for the right to acquire the above land for a valuable consideration for the sale of the transaction registered by the vendor. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force on 1 January 1979.
According to Section 4 of the Act, any transfer made in violation of the terms of the grant was deemed trivial Under Section 5 of the Act, all such lands were restored and restored to their original value. On or about September 11, 1986, the original grantee applied for proceedings under section 4 of the Act; As a result, proceedings were initiated against the applicant. On May 29, 1987, the deputy ordered the first grantee to restore the land.
On March 25, 1889, the applicant appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a writ petition titled Writ Petition No. 23216 of 1990 asking the Court to declare that any order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act for recovery of certain property is enforceable against the transfer value of improvements under § 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the above petition. The applicant’s rectification application was rejected by order of February 16, 1996. In that case, a crucial question of law arose as to whether Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to situations covered by Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Castes. The Tribal Law dealt with restrictions on alienation of acquired lands and restitution of acquired lands. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Allotment of Certain Lands) Act was enacted to provide financial assistance and support to the ST/SC communities in accordance with the preamble of the constitution and guiding principles of state policy. If it is determined that a transfer of land took place in violation of the terms of the grant, the state has the right to take back the property and return it to the recipients of the grant in accordance with the provisions of the law.
Such a continuing order must be granted to minimize unnecessary delay or protracted proceedings. In this case, transplantation of cultivated alienated land. Now look at section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act which says:
“When a transferee of immovable property makes improvements to the property in the good faith that he is entitled to do so, and is then evicted by a person By virtue of a better title, the transferor has the right to demand from the person who caused the eviction an assessment of the value of the improvement and pay or insure to the acquirer or sell part of the property to the buyer at its current market value, regardless of the value of the property .”
According to Sections 4 and 5 of the Second Act, however, the transfer was illegal, and the transferee has no right to the lands so transferred. That is why this conflict has become a question of law in the current case before the Court.
Issues
1. Applicability of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Allotment of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
2. Is personal law or common law permitted?
3. Is section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 relevant?
Law Statutes
Section 51
under false names of fraudulent owners. the estate makes improvements to the property in good faith that it has a right to them and is later evicted from the property by a person with a better title, the conveyancer has the right to claim against the person. who caused the eviction either by the assessed and by paying or guaranteeing the value of the improvement to the purchaser of the improvement or by selling his property to the purchaser at the current market value regardless of the value of the improvement.
The amount payable or guaranteed for such improvement shall be the appraised value at the time of eviction. If the transferee has, in certain circumstances, planted or sown plants growing on the farm leaving his place, he is entitled to such crops and free entry and exit for their collection and transport.
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
Section 4
Prohibition of Transfer of Approved Lands
1. Regardless of what is provided in the law, agreement, contract or document, a transfer of land is a transfer made either before the entry into force of this Law or after it in violation of the terms of transfer of land or the law. in relation to the grant of subsection (2) of section 2 or part thereof shall be void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be assigned or deemed to have been assigned.
2. After the coming into force of this Act, no person shall alienate or alienate by alienation the land granted without prior permission of the Government.
3. The provisions of points 1 and 2 also apply to the sale of land by decision or regulation of a civil court or by decision or regulation of another authority.
Section 5
Restitution and restitution of given lands:
1. If at the request of the affected person or on the basis of written information from the person or Suo-Motu and after an investigation deemed necessary by him, the so – called the deputy commissioner is convinced that the transfer of the land in question is null based on § 4 subsection 1, he can:
a. to take possession of that land after all persons in possession thereof have been evicted in the prescribed manner. Provided that such order shall not be made until the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
b. returns such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. If it is not reasonably possible to return the land to such grantee or legal heir, it will be considered as belonging to the state without concerns. The State Council may grant such land to any person belonging to a Scheduled Caste group or tribe as per the Land Grant Rules.
[(1A) After the inquiry referred to in subsection (1), the Deputy Commissioner, if he is satisfied that the transfer of the land in question is not void, may make an order to that effect.]
Analysis
Harish Chandra Hegde Vs. In the state of Karnataka and other states, there was a conflict between section 4,5 of the Karnataka Castes and Tribes Act (prohibition of alienation of certain lands) and section 51 of the TPA. According to the court, the law on the transfer of property is a general law. However, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was passed to help protect the poor population (SC, ST). So, the first one wins.
Tribal settlements struggle with unique problems. Historically, members of these communities were less powerful groups in society. They need the protection of the law because they are trusted and easily betrayed by dishonest people. Because of their innocence, poverty and historical backwardness, they are vulnerable to exploitation.
The Constitution of India and the Ordinances of 1956 aim to ensure that a member of the indigenous community retains title to acquired property and that any suit to transfer title to property is limited to its application. to members of the tribe in such a way that even if one member of the tribe acquires property from another, ownership remains with the original member of the tribe.
It protects the interests of tribal groups. The court also found that the transfer specified in section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act did not include a legal transfer.
The Law on Transfer of Property, which is essentially a general law, would only apply if the matter was dealt with in a separate law. Transfer of property under the Act is prohibited by Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The application of this law is limited because it applies exclusively to transfers between two persons and excludes all other forms of transfer.
The provisions of the Act do not apply to transfers under section 2(d) made by process or court order. According to Section 2(d), the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act prevail over any law inconsistent with other laws. Specific features and objectives of certain laws arise for a specific reason and apply in certain areas. Thus, the special law replaced the right to alienate the object, the general law that applies to all the ordinary circumstances of the alienation of property.
Conclusion
The case of Harish Chandra Hegde Vs. The state of Karnataka is one of the most important decisions in this field. In that case, Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act was inconsistent with certain sections of the Karnataka Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act.
The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was passed to protect the interests of a certain social group, according to the court. Scheduled caste and scheduled tribe were to be supported and protected. The law was thus approved in accordance with the principles of state policy. As a result, it had the characteristics of a unique action. Therefore, such a deed would not be subject to the rules of the General Act. Thus, the circumstances in this case did not enter the scope of section 51 of the Transfer of Property Law.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was Harish Chandra Hegde Vs. The main problem of the state of Karnataka?
The main issue was the conflict between the general provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Section 51, and the specific provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. A court had to decide which laws apply in this case.
2. What is Section 51 of Transfer of Property Act 1882?
Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 allows a transferee who has made improvements to property in good faith to claim compensation for those improvements if someone with a better title later evicts them.
3. What does the Karnataka Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Allotment of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 contain?
The Law of 1978 prohibits the alienation of lands given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if the alienation violates the conditions of the grant. It aims to protect these communities from exploitation and ensure that all such illegal transfers are voided, and the land is returned to the original recipients.
4. Why was the transfer of land considered illegal in this case?
The transfer was held to be illegal as it violated the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The law specifies that the transfer of a given land, which is made in violation of its conditions, is null and void.
5. Why did the court prefer the Karnataka Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act over the Transfer of Properties Act?
The court gave priority to the Act of 1978 because it is a special legislation aimed at protecting the interests of a vulnerable social group namely Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the event of a conflict, special laws take precedence over general laws, which ensures that the specific goals of special laws are achieved.
6. In this context, what was the court’s decision on Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act?
The court held that Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply in this context. The court said that the special provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act prevailed over the general Transfer of Property Act.
7. What is the significance of this case?
This case is important because it sets a precedent for resolving conflicts between general property laws and special conservation laws. It established the principle that special laws protecting vulnerable communities take precedence over general property laws.
8. How will this decision affect future real estate transfer disputes related to special legislation?
This decision confirms that in cases with special legislation enacted for the protection of certain communities, such legislation takes precedence over general laws on the transfer of property. This ensures that protections under special laws are maintained in property disputes.
