1997 Supreme(SC) 731

1997(5) Supreme 186
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S.B. Majmudar & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Deonarayan Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
The Commissioner of Bhagalpur & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4657 of 1984
Decided on 23-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, L.R. Singh, Anis Ahmad, R.K. Khanna, A.K. Pandey, R.P. Singh, M.K. Singh, A. Sharan, M.P. Jha, Advocates.

Headnote:Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949-Sections 20 and 42 - Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872-Section 27(1)-Mool Raiyat-Transfer of share in-Violation of record of rights of estate and consequently Section 27(1) of Regulation-However, transaction of sale was duly approved and cleared by competent authority exercising powers u/s 27(3)-A right accrued in favour of vendee to remain in possession of transferred lands-Repeal of Section 27-Effect on this right of vendee by coming into operation of Act-Whether right accrued to vendee was saved despite repeal of Section 27?-(Yes)-Sale deed by vendee in favour of father of appellants-Valid-This transaction did not offend provisions of Section 20(1)-Possession of appellants as heirs of deceased vendee validly obtained-Question of adverse possession of vendee under an invalid transaction of land being violative of Section 27(1) of Regulation or Section 20(1) of the Act-Kept open. (Bihar General Clauses Act, 1917-Section 8).

       Held; seven months elapsed during which the transaction remained under the gaze of scrutiny of the Sub-Divisional Officer and ultimately got scrutinised by the Deputy Commissioner himself. Consequently on the peculiar facts of this case it must be held that the said transaction was duly filtered by the competent authority who in its discretion approved the same years back on 28th December 1939. Accordingly it must be held that a right accrued to the transferee of the said transfer in his favour under the Regulation. A mere look at the relevant provisions of the Act shows that there is no express provisions of the Act which lays down that notwithstanding the orders passed or actions taken in connection with transactions under the Regulation, and notwithstanding any rights which might have accrued thereunder fresh scrutiny of the said transaction could be made under the relevant provisions of the Act which corresponded to the earlier repealed Section 27 of the Regulation. When such a contrary intention does not appear from the scheme of the Act, the effect of the repeal of Section 27 of the Regulation squarely attracts the provisions of Section 8 of the Bihar General Clauses Act, 1917. As repealed Section 27 of the Regulation is re-enacted as Section 20(1) of the Act and as the latter Act does not project any different and contrary intention to set at naught any final orders rendered by competent authorities under the repealed Section 27 of the Regulation, the repeal of Section 27 of the Regulation by the Act will not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said repealed provision. Consequently the immunity earned by the transaction of 22nd March 1939 under the Regulation and the approval granted to it by the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 28th December 1939 remained available and accrued to the vendee Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury despite the repeal of Section 27 of the Regulation by the Act. Thus on the peculiar facts of this case it must be held that the transaction of 22nd March 1939 cannot be said to have any adverse effect on the right of the vendee under the said transaction and he remained perfectly competent to deal with the transferred 38.09 acres of land covered by the said transaction in his favour which was duly filtered by the then competent authorities and the Regulation. Consequently the decision rendered on the merits of this transaction by all the authorities below and which came to be accepted by the High Court in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on account of these salient tell-tale facts which have remained undisputed on record of the case. (Para 7)

       Further held : Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury was a Raiyat who was recognised as the Mool Raiyat by the competent authorities under the Regulation. His entire right, title and interest in the said land which was an alienable jote was transferred under the said second transaction in favour of the appellants father. The right to transfer was duly recorded in the Record of Rights and required the transferor to transfer if at all his entire right, title and interest in the Mool Raiyat. That is precisely what was done by Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury in favour of the appellants father by the transaction dated 26th June 1950. Therefore, this transaction dated 26th June 1950. Therefore, this transaction did not offend the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act. If that is so, it remained fully within the forecorners of the said provision and could not be treated to be illegal or invalid from any angle. Consequently there would remain no occasion for the authorities to invoke Section 20(5) of the Act read with Section 42 thereof in connection with this latter transaction of sale dated 26th June 1950. In fact in fairness to the respondents it must be submitted that all authorities below as well as the High Court by the impugned judgment have considered the invalidity of the first transaction of sale dated 22nd March 1939 and in that light they have voided the second transaction as a consequential transaction. Once the nexus between the two sales gets snapped and the earlier transaction by itself cannot be found fault with from any angle, then there would remain no occasion for the respondent-authorities to invoke the provisions of Section 20(1) read with sub-Section (5) and Section 42 of the Act in connection with even the second sale transaction dated 26th June 1950. Once that conclusion is reached the result becomes obvious. On these peculiar facts there is no escape from the conclusion that the possession of the appellants as heirs of deceased vendee Radha Prasad Singh can be said to have been validly obtained and a valid title that was conveyed in land admeasuring 38.09 acres, to their father Radha Prasad Singh under the second sale transaction dated 26th June 1950, got legally transmitted to the appellants by rules of succession. (Para 8)