Summary
Land of a Scheduled Tribe family in Sundargarh was acquired for an Ultra Mega Power Project, and the compensation was paid to the male descendants. A daughter of one coparcener claimed a one-fifth share by survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act. The Reference Court and the Orissa High Court rejected her claim. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal. Section 2(2) of the Act excludes members of Scheduled Tribes, and law prevails over equity, so granting her claim would amount to amending the statute. The Court observed that denying tribal daughters parity is hard to justify after 70 years of the Constitution. It directed the Central Government to examine withdrawing the exemption in light of Articles 14 and 21.
Issues
- Whether a female member of a Scheduled Tribe can claim a share by survivorship in compensation for acquired ancestral land under the Hindu Succession Act, given Section 2(2).
Provisions considered
- Section 2(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956The Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise, so the tribal daughter could not claim survivorship under it while the provision stands unamended. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Section 30, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The apportionment dispute over the compensation was referred to the civil court under this provision. (¶ 2.1)
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaInvoked in directing the Central Government to consider withdrawing the Scheduled Tribe exemption so that tribal daughters receive equal succession rights. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2)
Held
- As the parties are members of a Scheduled Tribe, Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act excludes them, and the appellant cannot claim a right of survivorship under it; the High Court committed no error. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Though equity may favour the daughter, where law and equity conflict the law prevails, and accepting the claim would amount to amending the law, which is for the legislature, not the Court. (¶¶ 6, 6.1)
- Madhu Kishwar does not assist the appellant: the majority declined to strike down the male-line succession under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and only carved out an interim right for female dependants, while K. Ramaswamy J.'s view applying the general principles of the succession laws to Scheduled Tribes was a minority view. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3, 6.4)
- There may be no justification for denying a tribal daughter parity with a male tribal in intestate succession, and the Central Government is directed to examine whether to withdraw the exemption or amend the Act. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 6901 of 2022 dismissed, affirming the Orissa High Court judgment dated 07.10.2016 in L.A.A. No. 79 of 2015; the Central Government directed to examine withdrawing the Scheduled Tribe exemption under the Hindu Succession Act.