The Supreme Court has set aside concurrent orders passed by Karnataka authorities and the High Court which had annulled the transfer of granted land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, holding that the proceedings were initiated by persons who themselves participated in the original sale transaction after expiry of the non-alienation period.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal and quashed the orders of the authorities and the Karnataka High Court which had treated the land transfer as null and void under Section 4 of the 1978 Act.
The dispute related to land originally granted in 1977 to a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The grant certificate was issued in 1981 under Schedule E of the Karnataka Land Revenue Code, which prohibited alienation for a period of 15 years. The first transfer of the land took place in 1997, after expiry of the 15-year restriction period, and the appellant later purchased the property in 2003. Proceedings challenging the transfer were initiated in 2006-07.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the 1978 Act was not applicable because the transfer had taken place after the expiry of the statutory non-alienation period. Reliance was placed on the earlier judgment in Shakuntala v. State of Karnataka.
On the other hand, the State relied on precedents including Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner, Vivek M. Hinduja v. M. Ashwatha, and Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika to contend that delay alone cannot defeat proceedings initiated under the beneficial legislation meant to protect lands granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State argued that even an 8-year delay had previously been held not fatal by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the 1978 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect vulnerable SC/ST grantees from losing granted lands through exploitation or inducement. However, the Court drew a crucial distinction on facts.
The Bench noted that the very persons who initiated proceedings under the Act were themselves parties to the 1997 sale transaction. The Court recorded that respondents 4 and 5, sons of the original grantee, were adults at the time of the transfer and had participated in the alienation after the expiry of the 15-year prohibition period.
Highlighting this distinguishing circumstance, the Supreme Court observed that the case was not one where legal heirs were unaware of the grant or transfer, nor was it a case initiated by villagers objecting to an illegal alienation. Instead, the proceedings had been initiated by individuals who themselves participated in the transaction sought to be challenged.
Taking note of these “peculiar facts,” the Court held that the authorities and the High Court erred in annulling the sale transaction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and all impugned orders were set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: Seethamma W/o Late Sathyappa Versus The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1155-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.19635 of 2023
Date: 07/05/2026
