1997 (4) TMI 520 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale transaction dated 22nd March 1939.
2. Validity of the sale transaction dated 26th June 1950.
3. Applicability and effect of Section 27 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872.
4. Applicability and effect of Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949.
5. Adverse possession and its prescriptive period.
6. Authority of the Deputy Commissioner to approve or evict under the Regulation and the Act.
7. Impact of the Bihar General Clauses Act, 1917 on the repealed provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Transaction Dated 22nd March 1939:
The initial sale transaction of 22nd March 1939 by Bhatu Singh to Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury was scrutinized under Section 27(1) of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872. The Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that this transaction was violative of Section 27(1) because Bhatu Singh, a Raiyat, transferred his share without the right to transfer being recorded in the Record of Rights. However, the Supreme Court noted that the transaction was duly approved by the competent authority, including the Deputy Commissioner, after a detailed scrutiny and issuance of notices. Consequently, the transaction was regularized and could not be reopened under the Regulation.

2. Validity of the Sale Transaction Dated 26th June 1950:
The subsequent sale on 26th June 1950 by Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury to Radha Prasad Singh was evaluated under Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. The Supreme Court held that this transaction was valid as it involved the transfer of the entire right, title, and interest of Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury, who was recognized as the Mool Raiyat. The transaction did not violate Section 20(1) of the Act, and thus, the authorities could not invoke Section 20(5) to evict the appellants.

3. Applicability and Effect of Section 27 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872:
Section 27(1) prohibited the transfer of Raiyat's rights unless recorded in the Record of Rights. The Supreme Court found that the initial transaction was scrutinized and approved by the Deputy Commissioner, thereby regularizing it. The Full Bench's reliance on Section 27(1) to invalidate the transaction was thus misplaced.

4. Applicability and Effect of Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949:
Section 20(1) of the Act mirrors Section 27(1) of the Regulation, prohibiting transfers unless recorded in the Record of Rights. The Supreme Court held that the second transaction complied with Section 20(1) as it involved the transfer of the entire right, title, and interest of the Mool Raiyat.

5. Adverse Possession and Its Prescriptive Period:
The Full Bench of the High Court had held that the prescriptive period of 12 years for adverse possession stopped running from 1st November 1949, the date of enforcement of the Act. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to address this issue, as the transactions were valid on other grounds.

6. Authority of the Deputy Commissioner to Approve or Evict Under the Regulation and the Act:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner had the discretion to approve or evict under Section 27(3) of the Regulation. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner had approved the initial transaction, precluding any further challenge. The same principle applied under Section 20(5) of the Act for the second transaction.

7. Impact of the Bihar General Clauses Act, 1917 on the Repealed Provisions:
The Supreme Court applied Section 8 of the Bihar General Clauses Act, 1917, which preserves rights accrued under repealed provisions unless a contrary intention appears. The repeal of Section 27 by the Act did not nullify the rights accrued under the earlier approval by the Deputy Commissioner.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the judgment of the High Court and the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The application for eviction under Section 20(5) read with Section 42 of the Act was dismissed. The transactions were held valid, and the appellants' possession and title were upheld.