2000 (5) TMI 1089 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the surrender of land by a Scheduled Tribe member in 1942.
2. Applicability of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
3. Validity of the appellant's claim as the adopted son of Sukhi Oraon.
4. Rights of non-tribals to hold tribal land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Surrender of Land by a Scheduled Tribe Member in 1942:
The lands in question were originally recorded in the name of a Scheduled Tribe member who executed a registered deed of surrender in favor of the landlord in 1942. The landlord subsequently settled the land permanently in favor of another individual. The first respondent acquired part of this land in 1971 and got her name mutated in the official records. The appellant claimed that the surrender deed was fraudulent and that he succeeded to the interest of the original owner through adoption. The High Court held that the surrender was permissible in law as it occurred before the amendment of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in 1947, which required prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner for such transfers. The surrender was not invalidated by the timing within the agricultural year, as this stipulation benefited the landlord, not the tenant.

2. Applicability of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908:
Section 71A, introduced in 1969, allows for the restoration of land transferred by a Scheduled Tribe member without proper authorization. The appellant invoked this section, claiming forcible dispossession. The High Court found that Section 71A did not apply to the case as the surrender occurred in 1942, long before the section was enacted. The court also noted that the lands were Chhaparbandi lands, not raiyati lands, and thus Section 71A was not applicable. The High Court quashed the orders of the Special Officer who had directed the restoration of possession to the appellant.

3. Validity of the Appellant's Claim as the Adopted Son of Sukhi Oraon:
The appellant claimed rights to the land as the adopted son of Sukhi Oraon, the original owner's son. However, the first respondent and other authorities challenged this claim, alleging that the adoption deed was fabricated. The Special Officer and subsequent courts found that the appellant was not the adopted son of Sukhi Oraon. The High Court and other authorities recorded findings that the appellant had manipulated documents and avoided criminal proceedings. These findings undermined the appellant's locus standi to claim the land.

4. Rights of Non-Tribals to Hold Tribal Land:
The appellant argued that the first respondents, being non-tribals, could not hold or retain the land, which should be allotted to a tribal by the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court did not address this issue directly but left open the question of the disputed character of the lands and the nature of the interest surrendered. The Supreme Court noted that the powers under Section 71A could not be exercised without a time limit, especially after nearly forty years, and unmindful of the rights acquired by parties under ordinary law and the Law of Limitation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellant's claims. The court upheld the High Court's reasoning that the statutory provisions in force at the time of the surrender did not require prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner and that Section 71A did not apply to the case. The court also noted the appellant's lack of locus standi due to the fabricated adoption claim and subsequent criminal proceedings. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.