[2012] 1 Kar. L.J.

675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Present:

Vikramajit Sen and Acg. C. J., and A. S. Bopanna, J.

D. Kariyappa

v.
Thimmabovi and Others

y.

co

(A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Articles 341, 342 and 366(24) and 366(25) Scheduled Castes
Definition of Castes specified in presidential notification issued under Article 341 of
Constitution, for purposes of Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that
State Therefore, person belonging to caste which is specified as Scheduled Caste in his State
is entitled to all benefits under the Constitution in that State alone and not in all parts of country
wherever he migrates Corollary of this rule is that if person belonging to caste, which in
particular State is categorised as Scheduled Caste, he would be entitled to all benefits enuring
from such determination regardless of position that such determination does not exist in State
where he was born Therefore, person belonging to Bhovi community which is recognised
as Scheduled Caste in Karnataka, cannot be denied benefits in Karnataka on ground that he
was born in another State where said community is not recognised as Scheduled Caste.

.k

ljl
ib
ra
r

Vikramajit Sen, Acg. C.J. and A.S. Bopanna, J., Held: A person who is recognised as a
member of SC/ST in his original State will be entitled to all benefits under the Constitution in
that State alone and not in all parts of the country where he migrates. . . . . In the present case,
the original grantee hailed from Andhra Pradesh where the Bovi Community is not a
Scheduled Caste. If a person belongs to a community, which in a particular State has been
categorised as a Scheduled Caste Community, he would be entitled to all the benefits enuring
from such a determination regardless of the position that such a reservation does not exist in
the State where he was born. [Paras 2 and 3]

w
w

(B) KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF

TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978, Sections 4 and 5 Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
Sections 100 to 104 Condition prohibiting alienation of granted land for period specified
Sale in breach of Burden to prove that grantee does not belong to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe and that grant does not attract such restrictive condition, held, is on
alienee who is making assertion When he has failed to discharge burden, finding recorded by
Authority that grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste, on basis of caste certificate issued by
Tahsildar who is competent to issue same, has to be accepted.

Vikramajit Sen, Acg. C.J. and A.S. Bopanna, J., Held: The appellant before us has failed
altogether to produce any material in support of his contention that the original grantee did
not belong to Scheduled Caste/Bovi Community. In a case such as the present one, there is a
stipulation in the original grant itself that alienation is not permitted for a certain period.
Therefore, the prospective buyer is put to caution as to whether the property should be
purchased or not. Despite this caution, if the purchaser recklessly goes through with the sale
transaction, he himself is to be blamed. . . . . . . The Assistant Commissioner has taken into
cognizance the Caste Certificate bearing No. 448, dated 9-8-1988 and 21-4-2006 issued by
the Tahsildar to the son of the original grantee, by name Sri Govind, S/o Thimma Bovi.
Keeping that in view, he has returned the finding that the grantee belongs to the Scheduled
Caste-Bovi Community. There is no perversity whatsoever in this conclusion. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge committed no error in accepting the concurrent findings of the two

learned Single Judge committed no error in accepting the concurrent findings of the two
subordinate authorities while dismissing the writ petition. The appeal is wholly merit. [Paras
5 and 7]
(C) KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF
TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978, Sections 4 and 5 Condition prohibiting
alienation of granted land for period specified Competence to challenge validity of Such
Competence, held, lies only with grantee, not with third party subsequently purchasing land in
breach of condition.

Vikramajit Sen, Acg. C.J. and A.S. Bopanna, J., Held: The legal position is that a stipulation
regarding non-alienation for a specified period or even in perpetuity can be challenged only
by the grantee concerned and not by a third party including a subsequent purchaser, who
cannot claim to be in a better position than the person from whom title is sought to be derived
by him. [Para 6]

co

Note: In the case-law cited by learned Government Advocate, viz., Sadhana Lodh v
National Insurance Company Limited and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1561, there is no ruling in
support of contention that concurrent findings of authority will not call for interference.
Giving such wrong citations only confuses and misleads. [Ed.]

w
w

.k

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

Cases referred :
1. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Others [1990] 3
SCC 130 ref.
2. Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
Others [1994] 6 SCC 241; [1994] SCC (L and S) 1349 ref.
3. Chandra Naik v. State of Karnataka and Others [2012] 1 Kar. L.J. 667 foll.
4. Srinivas G. and Others v. Harish Kumar and Others [2012] 1 Kar. L.J. 670 foll.
5. Chinde Gowda v. Puttamma [2008] 2 Kar. L.J. 460 rel. on
1. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Others [1990] 3
SCC 130 ref.
2. Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
Others [1994] 6 SCC 241; [1994] SCC (L and S) 1349 ref.
3. Chandra Naik v. State of Karnataka and Others [2012] 1 Kar. L.J. 667 foll.
4. Srinivas G. and Others v. Harish Kumar and Others [2012] 1 Kar. L.J. 670 foll.
5. Chinde Gowda v. Puttamma [2008] 2 Kar. L.J. 460 rel. on
for Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2198 of 2011 (SC/ST).

JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, Acg. C.J., delivered the following:
This appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1-2- 2011 passed in W.P. No.
4245 of 2010 (SC/ST) observing that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the land granted in
favour of the original grantee was to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community,
and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
2. Before us, the matter has been canvassed in great detail. Our attention has been drawn to
the original order passed in the writ proceedings at the first instance, whereby the matter was
remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to determine whether the original grantee belongs to
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It was pursuant thereto that the order which led to

the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It was pursuant thereto that the order which led to
the filing of W.P. No. 4245 of 2010 came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on
29-7-2008. In that order, the Assistant Commissioner has returned the finding that Bovi
Community is a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka State. Inexplicably our attention has been
drawn to the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v Dean,
1
Seth G.S. Medical College and Others . The said judgment militates against the submission
made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It states that a person who is recognised as a
member of SC/ST in his original State will be entitled to all benefits under the Constitution in
that State alone and not in all parts of the country where he migrates.

3. In the present case, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the original grantee
hailed from Andhra Pradesh where the Bovi Community is not a Scheduled Caste. Therefore,
we have opined that Marri Chandras case is totally against the submission made by the
learned Counsel for the appellant. The corollary to the judgment is that if a person belongs to
a community, which in a particular State has been categorised as a Scheduled Caste
Community, he would be entitled to all the benefits enuring from such a determination
regardless of the

Page No: 677

y.

co

1. (1990)3 SCC 130

.k

ljl
ib
ra
r

position that such a reservation does not exist in the State where he was born. Learned
Counsel then reads extensively from a judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and
1
Another v Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others , which in fact is of no
advantage to the appellant inasmuch as it prescribes the manner in which an investigation into
whether a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe should be conducted. That
would be relevant if the caste certificates produced before us are sought to be challenged by
the appellant.

w
w

4. Mr. B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate draws our attention to Section
5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 which caste an obligation on the purchaser to disprove that a
grantee does not belong to Scheduled Caste. He also places reliance on the decision in the
case of Sadhana Lodh v National Insurance Company Limited and Another, AIR 2003 SC
1561: (2003)3 SCC 524: 2003 SCC (Cri.) 712 (sic-Motor Vehilces Act) to contend that
concurrent findings of the authority will not call for interference.
5. So far as the order and the finding by the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, he has
noted firstly that the appellant before us has failed altogether to produce any material in
support of his contention that the original grantee did not belong to Scheduled Caste/Bovi
Community. In a case such as the present one, there is a stipulation in the original grant itself
that alienation is not permitted for a certain period. Therefore, the prospective buyer is put to
caution as to whether the property should be purchased or not. Despite this caution, if the
purchaser recklessly goes through with the sale transaction, he himself is to be blamed.
6. We think it relevant to advert to two orders previously passed by us, namely Chandra Naik
2
v State of Karnataka and Others (W.A. No. 16380 of 2011, disposed of on 10-11-2011) and
3
Srinivas G. and Others v Harish Kumar and Others (W.A. No. 15234 of 2011, disposed of

on 2-12-2011); we had applied the dictum established by their Lordships in Chinde Gowda v
4
Puttamma . The legal position is that a stipulation regarding non-alienation for a specified
period or even in perpetuity can be challenged only by the grantee concerned and not by a
third party including a subsequent purchaser, who cannot claim to be in a better position than
the person from whom title is sought to be derived by him.
7. Returning to the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29-7- 2008, he has taken into
cognizance the Caste Certificate bearing No. 448, dated 9-8-1988 and 21-4-2006 issued by
the Tahsildar to the son of the original grantee, by name Sri Govind, S/o Thimma Bovi.
Keeping
1. (1994)6 SCC 241: 1994 SCC (L and S) 1349
2. 2012(1) Kar. L.J. 667 (DB)

3. 2012(1) Kar. L.J. 670 (DB)

co

4. 2008(2) Kar. L.J. 460 (SC): (2007)12 SCC 618

Page No: 678

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

that in view, he has returned the finding that the grantee belongs to the Scheduled Caste-Bovi
Community. There is no perversity whatsoever in this conclusion. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge committed no error in accepting the concurrent findings of the two subordinate
authorities while dismissing the writ petition. The appeal is wholly merit. The appeal is
dismissed.

.k

Considering the amount of time spent, we ought to dismiss the appeal with costs. But, in the
interest of justice, we desist from doing so.

w
w

Misc. W. No. 3400 of 2011 is disposed of as unnecessary.

Page No: 679