Summary
The Supreme Court held void an exchange transferring agricultural land from a Scheduled Tribe member to non-tribal persons. Section 157-B’s prohibition extends to exchange, and registration or payment of stamp duty does not cure the statutory violation. The respondents showed no statutory declaration removing the land from agricultural regulation. The asserted six-year limitation and equitable grounds based on hotel construction and loans did not save the transaction. The State’s appeal was allowed.
Issues
- Whether Section 157-B prohibited the exchange despite registration and stamp duty.
- Whether the claimed non-agricultural use, limitation or equitable considerations protected the transaction.
Provisions considered
- Section 157-B(1), U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950The words or otherwise include exchange within the prohibition on transfers from Scheduled Tribe holders to non-tribal persons. (¶¶ 12, 19, 23, 29, 30)
- Section 3(14), U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950The claimed non-agricultural character required statutory determination; deed recitals and location alone did not establish exemption. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18)
Held
- The statutory prohibition on a Scheduled Tribe bhumidhar or asami transferring land to a non-tribal person includes exchange. Receiving land in return, registering the deed and paying stamp duty do not remove that prohibition or the resulting voidness. (¶¶ 12, 19, 23, 29, 30)
- The respondents produced no declaration under Section 143. Their self-serving deed description and the State’s statement that the hotel lay in a market area did not establish that the land had ceased to be governed by the agricultural land legislation. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Even assuming an exchange were otherwise permissible under Section 161, prior Assistant Collector permission was mandatory. The rental-value difference here exceeded the statutory ten-percent threshold, requiring refusal; mutation and hotel approvals did not cure the defect. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The six-year entry relied on in Appendix III concerned suits for ejectment of a sirdar or asami and did not bar the action concerning this void transfer. Section 167 consequences followed from voidness under Section 166. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Loans and operation of a hotel supplied no equitable ground to preserve a transfer contrary to the protective legislation. The disproportionate exchange and absence of mutation of the land purportedly given to the tribal transferor further undermined the respondents’ position. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 29)
Result
State’s appeal allowed and High Court judgment set aside; appellants left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.