Bar on transfer of tenanted lands under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Even the agreement of sale is hit by such prohibition. Purchaser is not entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court.

Late Laxman Lakkappa Durgannavar by lrs. vs Yellawwa and others. Regular Second Appeal 2221/2005 decided on 12 March 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/333167/1/RSA2221-05-12-03-2020.pdf

Relevant Paragraphs: …17. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 creates an embargo on transfer of land within 15 years from the date of the order of Land Tribunal. The language used in Section 61 of the Act would also disclose that the legislature has imposed a restriction on transfer of land. Erstwhile tenant, who has become occupant of land, is prohibited from selling land within 15 years from the date of final order passed by the Tribunal. Sale made in contravention of prohibition being invalid, would invite the State Government to resume the land free from all encumbrances, for granting same to other landless persons eligible for occupancy.

21. The law on the subject has been recently stated by Justice B.R. Gavai in NARAYANAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. GOVINDAPPA AND OTHERS 2019 AIAR(Civil) 1031. The Apex Court at paragraph 23 has held that the transaction i.e., agreement for sale is nothing short of a transfer of property. Under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, there is a complete prohibition of transfer of land for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. I respectfully agree with the statement of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

23. I, come therefore, to the conclusion that the agreement for sale is hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land   Reforms   Act,   1961.      Accordingly,   the   second substantial question of law is answered.

25. Section 53-A (of the Transfer of Property Act) was first enacted in 1929 by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929, and imports into India a modified form of the equity of part performance as developed in England in Maddison Vs Alderson (1883) 8 App. Cas 467. The Section has been described by the Privy Council in PIR BUX, khan Bahadur Mian V. MOHOMED TAHAR, Sardar reported in AIR 1934 PC 235 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MANEKLAL MANSUKHBHAI VS HONNUUSJI JAMSHEDJI reported in AIR 1950 SC 1, as a partial importation of the English equitable doctrine of part performance. By virtue of Section 53-A of Transfer of property Act, part performance does not give rise to an equity, as in England, but to a statutory right. This right is more restricted than the English equity in two respects, (1) there must be a written contract, and (2) it is only available as a defence. So far as India is concerned, the section creates rights which were not in existence before the enactment was passed. These rights to retain possession rest on the express provisions of the statute. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act insists upon proof of some acts having been done in furtherance of the contract. The acts claimed to be in part performance must be unequivocally referable to the pre-existing contract, and point in the direction of the existence of contract.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

28. But, I have no doubt in my mind that the doctrine of part performance could have no place in the present case as defendant is seeking protection of his possession on the basis of an agreement for sale which is hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. All said and done, a prospective purchaser cannot utilize the agreement for sale (with possession) as protection of possession under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. A transfer in contravention of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 being void, Section 53- A of the said Act cannot be invoked in such a case.