1. The fourth respondent Kariyappa was granted land measuring 1.39 acres by the State on 22.11.1948 free of cost under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules. One of the conditions of the grant was that land shall not be alienated to any third party. Out of this granted land, the appellant herein purchased 20 guntas of land from the 4th respondent on 14.8.1967. On 1.1.1979 the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force and under Section 4 of the said Act, alienation made against the terms of the grant and the law providing for such grant, was declared null & void. In relation to that, the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the appellant for resumption of the land purchased by the 4th respondent. The appellant had objected to the order passed against him for resumption of the land purchased by him from the 4th respondent. But the Assistant Commissioner rejected the objections and confirmed his proposal. The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the 4th respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the said Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order originally passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and thereafter the appellant pursued the matter in writ appeal and the same was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, respondent and also learned Counsel appearing for the State.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that originally under Rule 43(G) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 there was total restraint on alienation and the said Rules were amended on 10th May, 1960 and by virtue of the amended Rule 43(G), the period of restraint of alienation in respect of any land given as per the Mysore Land Code was fixed at 15 (fifteen) years. As according to the appellant, the alienation, in question, had been effected after the amendment of Rule 43(G) and the same being after a period 15 years from the original grantee taking possession, Section 4 of the SC/ST (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 has no application. It is not disputed that prior to the amendment of these Rules (Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960), the prohibition against alienation was permanent, if grant was given free of cost, or is made at a price which is less than the full market value.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the alienation in favour of the appellant was after the introduction of Clause 4 of Rule 43(G) and, therefore, the said alienation was valid.
5. The learned Counsel for the 4th respondent contended that Clause 4 of Rule 43(G) would apply only in respect of grant effected subsequent to the commencement of these Rules. It was argued that the original grant, in favour of the 4th respondent was with a specific condition that it shall not be alienated permanently to any third party, the said clause is valid and the alienation was made in contravention of that clause.
6, It is to be noted that the amended Mysore Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 which came into force on 10.1.1960 contained a Saving Clause under Rule 4.
Rule 4 thereof reads as follows:
"4. Savings.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding Rules, in respect to the substitution of Rules 41 to 43-M by the new Rules 41 to 43-L by Rule 2 of these Rules and the submission of Appendix 'N' by Rule 3 of these rules, the provisions of Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, shall be applicable as if the said Rules 41 to 43-M and the said Appendix 'N' were an enactment and had been repealed by a Mysore Act, and accordingly Appendix 'N' were an enactment and had been repealed by a Mysore Act, and accordingly the said rules and appendix shall for the purposes mentioned in Section 6 of the said Act be deemed to continue in force."
7. From this Saving Clause it is clear that by virtue of Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act 1899 the unamended law shall be deemed to continue subject to the restriction made in that provisions. It is relevant to note Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 which reads as under:
"6 effect of repeal.- Where this Act or (any Mysore Act or Karnataka Act, made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not,-
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) after the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed;
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not been passed."
8. Sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 specifically declare that the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed.
9. If the savings clause in Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 is read in conjunction with Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act 1899, it is clear that the Provision contained in Clause (4) of Rule 43(G) will not have any application in respect of any transaction effected under the earlier Mysore Land Revenue Rules.
10. In view of the matter, the impugned judgment is sustainable and we find no reason to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
11. It is true that the appellant herein purchased land in 1960 and he has been continuing in possession for quite a long period and might have effected improvement in the property. It is for the appellant, to approach to the concerned authority for getting any compensation. The Counsel for the respondent submits that no provision has been made in the Act to provide compensation in respect of the land resumed.
12. If any such application is filed, the authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.