1987 Supreme(SC) 171
M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 1973, D/- 11-2-1987.
Niladri Patel, Appellant
Versus
Khadi Sha and others, Respondents.
Headnote:
Land - Agreement Of Sale - Scheduled Tribe - Appellant who claimed to have secured possession under an agreement of sale entered into before prohibition against transfer from a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe came into force could not legally acquire any title to property having regard to prohibition – Held, Regulation has been enacted in order to protect Scheduled Tribes front being dispossessed of lands in Scheduled Areas of State of Orissa - A transaction violating embargo cannot be invested with legality and no legal title can be acquired by one who violates prohibition - View taken by High Court is therefore unexceptionable - Appeal must therefore fail on merits - So far as fine levied on appellant is concerned, having regard to fact that he is also a tribal though not belonging to a tribe which is included in Schedule, that is to say though he is tribal but not a Scheduled Tribal - Fine levied on him may be reduced from Rs. 25/- per acre to , Rs. 10/- per acre per year - Since respondent 1 has already secured possession in 1967 fine will be payable only for period during which he was in possession - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :- Tile High Court was perfectly Justified in holding that the appellant who claimed to have secured possession under an agreement of sale entered into before the prohibition against transfer from a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe came into force could not legally acquire any title to the property having regard to the prohibition contained in Regulation No. 2 of 1956 (The Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes Regulation. 1956). The Regulation has been enacted in order to protect the Scheduled Tribes front being dispossessed of lands in the Scheduled Areas of the State of Orissa. A transaction violating the embargo cannot be invested with legality and no legal title can be acquired by one who violates the prohibition. The view taken by the High Court is therefore unexceptionable. The appeal must therefore fail on merits. So far as the fine levied on the appellant is concerned, having regard to the fact that he is also a tribal though not belonging to a tribe which is included in the Schedule, that is to say. though he is tribal but not a Scheduled Tribal. the fine levied on him may be reduced from Rs. 25/- per acre to , Rs. 10/- per acre per year. Since respondent 1 has already secured possession in 1967 the fine will be payable only for the period during which he was in possession till. 1967. Subject to this modification, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.