MANCHEGOWDA ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 are constitutionally valid. The Act applies only to transfers made in breach of prohibitory conditions, where the transferee's title was voidable at the commencement of the Act and not perfected by prescription. The Act does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 31 or 31A as the provisions are justified by public policy and the directive principles for protecting weaker sections. The Amending Act has provided for appeals, resolving procedural issues.
- Parties
- Appellant: Manchegowda etc.; Respondent: State of Karnataka etc.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court
- Outcome
- appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Constitutional Validity of Statutes, Prohibition of Land Transfer, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Restitution and Resumption of Granted Lands
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Manchegowda etc.
Appellant
State of Karnataka etc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 violate Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 31 and 31A of the Constitution
- 2 Whether the Act's provisions exclusively for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, excluding other communities, violate Article 14
- 3 Whether the absence of provision for appeal violates constitutional guarantees
Ratio Decidendi
Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 are constitutionally valid. The Act applies only to transfers made in breach of prohibitory conditions, where the transferee's title was voidable at the commencement of the Act and not perfected by prescription. The Act does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 31 or 31A as the provisions are justified by public policy and the directive principles for protecting weaker sections. The Amending Act has provided for appeals, resolving procedural issues.
Court Disposition
appeals dismissed
Orders
- Appeals and Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment