JUDGMENT

The appellant is a member of one of the Scheduled Tribes. Appellants ancestor was admittedly a raiyat of certain lands of which the transferor of respondent No. 1 was the landlord. On the plea that the land had been surrendered and thus resumed the transferor of respondent No. 1 alienated the same in favour of the respondent. To the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by amendment S. 71A was added in the year 1969 which authorise possession to be recovered in three eventualities:-

"If at any time it comes to notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes has taken place in contravention of S. 46 or any other provision of this Act or by any fraudulent method (including decrees obtained in suit by fraud and collusion) he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferee who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary enquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation........

2. A proceeding for evicting the respondent was taken by the authorities under the Act and on being satisfied that respondent No. 1 exposed himself to the liability of eviction an order was made. That gave rise to a proceeding before the High Court and ultimately the matter came before the Full Bench of the Patna High Court which held that the Act did not apply to a case of this type. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 has failed to establish resumption of the property by his transferor. The plea that the respondent had perfected title by long possession has also not been made out.

3. The only question for consideration is as to whether a transfer of the type involved in this case comes within the ambit of S. 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. As we have already pointed out three eventualities are provided in S. 71A of the Act, where the provision can be called into action. They are:

1. Where the transfer has taken place in contravention of S. 46;

2. Where transfer has taken place in contravention of any other provisions of the Act; and

3. Or transfer has been by any fraudulent method including decrees obtained in suit by fraud and collusion.

4. In this case the question for examination is whether the facts can be brought under the third category, namely, the transfer is by some fraudulent method.

5. Transfer has not been defined in the Act. The term has a definition in S. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act which states:

"Transfer of Property means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more other living persons and to transfer property is to perform such act."

6. In S.71A in the absence of a definition of transfer and considering the situation in which exercise of jurisdiction is contemplated, it would not be proper to confine the meaning of transfer to transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or a situation where transfer has a statutory definition. What exactly is contemplated in the provision is where possession has passed from one to another and as a physical fact the member of the Scheduled Tribe who is entitled to hold possession and a non-member has come into possession would be covered by transfer and a situation of that type would be amenable to exercise of jurisdiction within the ambit of S. 71 A of the Act.

6A. The provision is beneficial and the legislative intention is to extend protection to a class of citizens who are not in a position to keep their property to themselves in the absence of protection. Therefore, when the legislature is extending special protection to the named category, the Court has to give a liberal construction to the protective mechanism which would work out the protection and enable the sphere of protection to be effective than limit by the scope. In fact, that exactly is what has been said by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in almost a similar situation in Mancheg