Back
Fraudulent Cannot Validate Tribal Land Transfer Under :
The has firmly reiterated that a obtained through fraud or collusion cannot sanctify a transfer of tribal land governed by the (). Dismissing a writ petition, a Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi upheld the of land to a tribal widow, rejecting the petitioners' claim of possession based on a decades-old .
The Legal Battle Over Tribal Land
The dispute centered around land in Mauza Deoghar, East Singhbhum. Petitioners Ananta Gour and Ishan Gour claimed possession since , relying on a in Title Suit No. 791 of . They argued that the Circle Officer had mutated their names and accepted rent, and that the land had been converted into (built-up) land after construction of a house.
Respondent No. 5, Mamta Singh Munda—widow of late Jyotish Singh Munda—filed a case under in , alleging that the transfer was fraudulent and violative of the Act. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector allowed her application in , a decision upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal () and the revisional authority (). The petitioners then challenged all three orders before the High Court.
A Question of Valid Possession
The petitioners primarily contended that the proceeding was barred by limitation since they had been in possession for over 30 years, citing the 's decision in . They also argued that only the widow, not her sons, had filed the case, questioning her .
The State and the respondent countered that the itself was a under the . They pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner—a necessary party under —was not made a defendant in the original suit, and that the mutation was obtained only in , decades after the decree. The respondent argued that as the first legal heir, she had every right to seek .
Court’s Verdict: Fraud Cannot Be Sanitised
Justice Dwivedi examined the timeline closely. Although the was from , the mutation petition was filed only in , and rent receipts were from and . The Court held that this indicated the possession was not established innocently.
Relying on the Full Bench decision of the in Bina Rani Ghosh vs. Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division (1988), the Court observed:
“In the light of discussions of the Full Bench Judgment in the aforesaid case, it is crystal clear that transfer by any fraudulent method including decrees obtained in a suit by cannot be allowed to be continued.”
The Court emphasized that
mandates that any transfer in contravention of
"shall not be registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court."
Thus, a collusive
cannot override the statutory protection afforded to tribal lands.
The Court also rejected the argument of land conversion, noting that the nature was created only after the and did not change the land's original character under the Act. On limitation, the Court found that the petitioners' own conduct—filing mutation after 31 years—demonstrated , and therefore the exception recognized in Situ Sahu (where a after 30 years is barred only if there is no ) did not apply.
Key Observations
- “Transfer by any fraudulent method including decrees obtained in a suit by cannot be allowed to be continued.” (citing Bina Rani Ghosh )
- “Any deed in violation of of the said Act will not be recognized as valid by any Court; either Civil, Criminal or Revenue.”
- “The petitioners’ possession based on is not being accepted by this Court which is in violation of Act, 1908.”
Final Order
The High Court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition. The of the tribal land in favour of Mamta Singh Munda stands affirmed. The judgment serves as a strong reminder that procedural safeguards under the cannot be circumvented by collusive litigation, and that fraudulent transfers—no matter how old—remain open to challenge.
