2003 (11) TMI 587 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether right by adverse possession can be acquired by a non-aboriginal on the property belonging to a member of an aboriginal tribe?

Issues Involved:
1. Adverse possession by the defendant.
2. Transfer of land by members of scheduled tribes.
3. Applicability of the Orissa Merged States' Laws Act, 1950 and the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956.
4. Calculation of the limitation period for filing the suit.
5. Appropriate relief for the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Adverse Possession by the Defendant:
The plaintiff disputed the High Court's finding that the defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession through continuous and uninterrupted possession for over 12 years. The Supreme Court, however, chose not to re-evaluate the evidence and assumed the defendant's possession for over 12 years as a fact. The key question was whether this possession could perfect title by adverse possession, especially since the original owners were members of a scheduled tribe.

2. Transfer of Land by Members of Scheduled Tribes:
The land originally belonged to members of the Oraon tribe, a scheduled tribe. The Orissa Merged States' Laws Act, 1950, and the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956, imposed restrictions on the transfer of land by scheduled tribes to non-tribals without prior permission from the competent authority. The Supreme Court emphasized that these regulations aimed to protect tribal land from being transferred to non-tribals, thereby preventing exploitation.

3. Applicability of Relevant Acts and Regulations:
The Orissa Merged States' Laws Act, 1950, and the 1956 Regulations were enacted to regulate the transfer of land in tribal areas. Section 7 of the 1950 Act restricted the transfer of land by scheduled tribes to non-tribals without permission. The 1956 Regulations further expanded these restrictions, making any unauthorized transfer null and void. The definition of "transfer of immovable property" was broad, including any dealing with the property that could affect the rights of the tribal owners.

4. Calculation of the Limitation Period:
The Supreme Court noted that the period of adverse possession claimed by the defendant should be divided into two parts: pre-7.4.1964 (when the land was owned by tribals) and post-7.4.1964 (when it was transferred to a non-tribal). The period before 7.4.1964 could not be counted towards adverse possession as the land was protected under tribal laws. The relevant period for calculating adverse possession began from 7.4.1964. Since the suit was filed in 1970, only six years had elapsed, making the suit within the limitation period.

5. Appropriate Relief for the Plaintiff:
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the exact extent of the encroachment and the appropriate relief. The trial court was directed to:
- Accept an undisputed or proved map of the plaintiff's land, or appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to draw up a map if none was available.
- Determine whether to order the demolition of the defendant's construction and restore possession to the plaintiff or award suitable compensation instead.
- Assess compensation based on the date of the Supreme Court's judgment if compensation was deemed appropriate.

The trial court was instructed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within six months, with the costs incurred in the High Court and Supreme Court to be borne by the defendant. The costs in the trial court were left to the trial court's discretion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court with specific directions to determine the extent of encroachment and appropriate relief, ensuring the protection of tribal land rights as per the relevant laws and regulations.

← Previous Next →