INTRODUCTION:
The preamble of the Act clarifies its applicability solely to transfers executed by the actions of involved parties, excluding scenarios governed by other legislation. Furthermore, the Act does not apply when its provisions conflict with those of a special law, as established in the Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka case, which has since been a precedent in resolving disputes between special legislation and the Transfer of Property Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Government of Karnataka granted two acres of land under Survey No. 134/110 to Smt. Gangamma around May 1, 1961. The appellant later acquired this land through a recorded sale document on September 13, 1962. Subsequently, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, enacted on January 1, 1979, rendered void all alienations violating the grant’s provisions. The original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Act in 1986, leading to the restoration of the land to her in 1987. The appellant’s appeals were dismissed, prompting a writ petition seeking recognition of the transferee’s right to claim the value of improvements under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The case revolved around the conflict between Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. The latter aimed at supporting ST/SC people economically, allowing the state to reclaim land in violation of grant terms. The question was whether Section 51 applied to these circumstances, considering the illegal transfer under the special Act.
JUDGEMENT:
The court recognized the unique challenges faced by tribal areas and emphasized the need for legal protection due to the historical vulnerability of these societies. The Constitution and regulations from 1956 aimed to ensure the retention of property ownership by tribal community members, limiting legal processes affecting property transfers within these communities. The court clarified that Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act did not encompass transfers through operation of law, as addressed by the special Act. Consequently, the general Transfer of Property Act did not apply in this specific case.