Back
2000(4) Supreme 583
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
M.B. Shah & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Jai Mangal Oraon -Appellant
versus
Smt. Mira Nayak & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12493 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal Nos. ....... of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1463-64 of 1998)
Decided on 5-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.P. Raju, S.P. Sharma, and C.N. Sree Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Sunil Gupta, S.K.Singh, Gopal Prasad, B.B. Singh, Advocates.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over land rights under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, particularly concerning the validity of surrender and transfer of land interests prior to 1947, and the applicability of specific statutory provisions (!) .
The appellant claimed to be the adopted son of a recorded tenant and relied on a registered adoption deed, asserting his rights over the land. However, the appellant was found not to be the adopted son, and criminal proceedings indicated forgery and impersonation, undermining his standing (!) (!) .
The original land was recorded in the name of a tenant who surrendered the land in favor of the landlord in 1942 through a registered deed. The subsequent transfer of land to various parties, including the first respondent, was through registered sale deeds, and the mutation of records was carried out accordingly (!) (!) .
The legal proceedings highlighted that, at the time of surrender in 1942, statutory provisions did not require prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner for such surrender. The amendments introduced later did not retroactively affect the validity of such pre-1947 surrender deeds (!) (!) .
The courts examined whether the land was of a character that required special statutory treatment (e.g., Chhaparbandi land) and whether the provisions of the CNT Act, especially regarding dispossession and transfer, applied to the case. The findings indicated that the surrender did not involve raiyati interest, thus limiting the applicability of certain statutory protections (!) (!) .
The subsequent developments, including criminal cases and orders by various authorities, revealed serious issues such as manipulation, forgery, and criminal conduct by the appellant, which significantly affected his legal standing and claims to the land (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the law's provisions and the relevant statutory framework at the time did not require prior sanctions for such surrender deeds, and the rights of the parties had to be considered within the context of the law as it stood during the relevant period (!) (!) .
The courts ultimately dismissed the appeals, citing the appellant's lack of locus standi, the invalidity of his claims based on forged documents, and the subsequent legal and criminal developments that disqualified him from asserting rights over the land (!) (!) .
The decision also reaffirmed that non-tribal individuals could not hold or retain land designated for tribal use unless properly allotted by the competent authorities, and the land in question was liable for redistribution to eligible tribal persons (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures at the time of surrender and transfer, the significance of genuine legal standing, and the impact of subsequent criminal and procedural irregularities on land rights disputes (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT
Raju, J.-Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 1463-64/98.
2. These matters are dealt with together since they involve common and identical issues and submissions have also been made by the counsel in common. To properly appreciate the issues raised, the skeleton of facts, which led to the filing of the above appeals, would be necessary.
Civil Appeal No. 12493 of 1996
3. The lands in question forming part of a larger extent originally stood recorded in the name of late Nanda Oraon, a member of the Scheduled Tribe. On 15.1.42, Nanda Oraon was said to have executed a registered deed of surrender in favour of the landlord since he failed to and could not raise any crop on the land. The landlord, who thus came into possession of the land subsequently by a registered deed dated 16.2.42 alongwith his co-sharers, settled the land permanently in favour of one Satish Chandra Baul. Part of the land settled in favour of Satish Chandra Baul was said to have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation was also claimed and paid to the said person. The remaining extent was said to have been sold by the descendants of Satish Chandra Baul to various persons at different points of time during the year 1971-72. The first respondent claimed to have purchased under a registered sale deed dated 12.8.71, 5 kathas of land being a portion of plot No. 1217 which was also shown as sub plot No. 1217/16. She got her name mutated in the office of the Circle Officer, Ranchi by an order dated 13.3.1973 and after obtaining the necessary sanction, raised construction, thereon.
4. Subsequently, also for putting up additional construction, revised building plan was got sanctioned and when such construction was going on, the appellant filed an application on 12.12.1985 alleging that the first respondent had forcibly with the help of her muscle men started occupying the land belonging to him and despite complaint made before the concerned Police Station, it evoked no response necessitating the appellant to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, seems to have endorsed the application to the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, and he, in turn, directed the first respondent to stop construction and also directed her to appear in his court on 15.5.1985 in connection with S.A.R. case No. 114/84-85 under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short CNT Act ). It may be noticed at this stage that the appellant s claim was on the basis that after the death of Nanda Oraon his son Sukhi Oraon succeeded to his interest and the appellant was adopted by Sukhi Oraon under a registered Adoption Deed dated 20.2.74. As the adopted son of late Sukhi Oraon, he succeeded to the interest of his predecessor in interest in the property.
5. Aggrieved against the notice/direction issued by the Special Officer, the first respondent filed CWJ Case No. 118 of 1986 (R) challenging the jurisdiction and authority as also the legality of the proceedings initiated under Section 71A of the CNT Act. The case of the first respondent before the High Court was that Section 71A is not attracted unless it is alleged that there had been some transfer of raiyati interest by a member of Scheduled Tribe in favour of another person; that there is no provision in the CNT Act which empowers either the Special Officer or the Police to stop construction of a building over the plot of land in question, that the plot of land having been surrendered before the year 1947, no previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner was required to be obtained and that in any event the land being Chhaparbandi land, the provisions of Section 71A has no application. The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellant by contending that the registered surrender deed dated 15.1.42 was nothing but a fraudulent method applied by the ex-landlord to get the raiyati interest in agricultural lands of recorded tenants. The clai
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
