TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act applied to a transfer of tribal land where possession had passed to a non-tribal transferee through a fraudulent method, though not falling strictly within the definition of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act; (ii) whether the transferee was entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land before eviction.
Issue (i): Whether Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act applied to a transfer of tribal land where possession had passed to a non-tribal transferee through a fraudulent method, though not falling strictly within the definition of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act.
Analysis: Section 71A is a protective provision enacted to restore possession of tribal land in specified situations, including transfers made by fraudulent method. Since the Act does not define "transfer", the expression was construed in its broader sense to include the passing of possession from a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe to a non-member. A restrictive reading confined to the Transfer of Property Act would defeat the legislative object of protecting Scheduled Tribe landholders. The authorities were therefore justified in invoking Section 71A on the facts found.
Conclusion: The provision applied, and the High Court was wrong in holding otherwise. The finding was in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the transferee was entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land before eviction.
Analysis: The transferee had improved the property, and the Court considered that where eviction follows a fraudulent acquisition, the equities may still justify valuation of improvements and payment of compensation. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to assess the value of the improvements and fix the compensation payable.
Conclusion: Compensation for improvements was directed, in favour of the respondent transferee, while the eviction order was maintained.
Final Conclusion: The statutory restoration power under Section 71A was upheld on a liberal and purposive construction, the High Court's view was set aside, and the appellant succeeded with directions for valuation and payment of compensation for improvements.
Ratio Decidendi: A protective land-restoration provision for Scheduled Tribe raiyats must receive a liberal construction, and "transfer" for its purposes may extend beyond the technical definition under the Transfer of Property Act to include a passing of possession effected by fraudulent means.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
