Tuesday, November 5, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

SC says Transfer of Land belonging to ST by exchange deed is void

The Supreme Court  has held that transfer of land belonging to a member of schedule tribe by way of exchange deed is void in terms of section 157B of UP (Zamindari Abolition & Land Revenue) Act. The provision puts a complete bar on a Bhumidhar or Asami belonging to Scheduled Tribe to transfer their land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease or otherwise to a person not belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the Apex Court said while setting aside a 2008 order of the Uttarakhand High Court.

The respondents herein executed an exchange deed dated 16.03.1994 with one Mangal Singh who belonged to Schedule Tribe. The exchange was disputed as Mangal Singh holding 2400 Sq.mts of land exchanged it with much smaller piece of land i.e. 56.25 sq.mts of the respondents. This aspect casts doubt upon the validity of the exchange deed and was further strengthened by the fact that the names of the respondents had been mutated in the land of Mangal Singh in revenue records.

The bench held that U.P. ZA & LR Act is a beneficial legislation which has been enacted to protect the interest of the exploited rural masses. The Preamble of the U.P. (ZA & LR) Act shows that it is an Act to provide for the abolition of zamindari system which involves intermediaries between tiller of the soil and the State in U.P. (adopted by the State of Uttarakhand) and for the acquisition of the rights, title and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent upon such abolition and acquisition and to make provisions for other matters connected therewith. Observing that agriculture is the only source of livelihood for Scheduled Tribes apart from the collection and sale of minor forest produce to supplement their income and source of their economic empowerment.

It was held that the transfer has been made in contravention to the provisions of the said act and there is no ground for considering question of equity, which otherwise would defeat the provisions of the Act.

62-2009-5-1501-21162-Judgement-03-Mar-2020.pdf

spot_img

News Update