Accrued rights on repeal: a regularised land transfer remained effective, and later eviction proceedings failed.

A transfer of raiyati interest that was initially within the mischief of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 was treated as regularised because the competent revenue authority issued notice, considered the mutation and clearance, and approved it. That approval created an accrued right in the transferee. On repeal of section 27 by the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, there was no contrary intention to disturb rights already acquired or acts duly done, so the saving principle preserved that right. The transferee's later conveyance of the entire right, title and interest was therefore not invalid under the 1949 Act, and the eviction proceedings could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transfer of raiyati interest made in contravention of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872, but subsequently scrutinised and approved by the competent revenue authority, could later be treated as void after the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 came into force; and whether the later transfer of the transferee's entire right, title and interest could be invalidated under the Act.

Analysis: The earlier transfer, though prima facie within the mischief of section 27(1) of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872, was found on the record to have been placed before the competent authority for mutation and clearance, subjected to notice, and ultimately approved by the Deputy Commissioner. On those facts, the transfer was treated as having been regularised under section 27(3), and a right accrued in favour of the transferee. When the 1949 Act came into force and repealed section 27 of the Regulation to that extent, there was no indication of a contrary intention to disturb rights already acquired or anything duly done under the repealed provision. By virtue of the saving principle embodied in section 8 of the Bihar General Clauses Act, 1917, the accrued right survived the repeal. The later conveyance by the transferee of his entire right, title and interest in the land was, therefore, not hit by section 20(1) of the 1949 Act, and the consequential eviction proceedings under section 20(5) read with section 42 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The challenge to both transfers failed, and the eviction order against the appellants could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The land transfer in favour of the appellants' predecessor remained legally effective, the subsequent transfer to the appellants was valid, and the eviction proceedings lacked a sustainable basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer regularised and approved by the competent authority under the repealed law preserves the accrued right of the transferee, and in the absence of a contrary legislative intention, such right is protected on repeal and cannot be defeated by a subsequent proceeding under the re-enacted provision.

---