AMERANDRA PRATAP SINGH versus TEJ BAHADUR PRAJAPATI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 21-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
AMERANDRA PRATAP SINGH 
v. 
TEJ BAHADUR PRAJAPATI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 25; Article 65-0rissa Merged States' 
(Laws) Act, 1950-Section 7-The Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of 
Immovable Property (By Schedule Tribes) Regulations, 195~Paras 2(j), 
C 3, 3A, JD-_ Transfer of immovable property of a tribal in a tribal area-
Non-tribal claiming title in suit land by adverse possession-Validity of-
Held not valid-Object of 1950 Act and 1956 Regulations is to see and 
ensure that non-tribals do not usurp tribal lands-Thus adverse possession 
by a non-tribal from a tribal is prohibited-The tribal lands vest with the 
D State and so the Limitation Act does not apply so long as the lands were 
in possession of the tribals-Remanded back to trial court with directions-
Constitution of India-Article 244, Fifth Schedule. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
E 
Legislative intent-Ascertaining of-Dictionary meaning-Use of-
Held, the meaning should take colour from the context of the legislation 
for effectuating the legislative intent. 
Precedent-Held, a judicial decision cannot be read by implying or 
F by assigning an assumed intention to the Judges and inferring a proposition 
of law not specifically laid down. 
Prior to 1962, C and P, who are scheduled tribes, were holding 
a piece of agricultural land situated in a tribal area. In 1962, they 
transferred their right and interest in 0.75 decimals of the land in 
G favour of one MSM, who is also a scheduled tribe. On 7.4.1964, MSM 
sold 0.40 decimals of the land to one RM, a non-tribal, after obtaining 
permission from the competent authority. In 1965, the appellant-
plaintiff purchased 0.195 decimals of the land from RM. In 1968, when 
the appellant proposed to raist> construction on the suit land, he was 
H obstructed in doing so by the owner of the adjoining land. RM executed 
42 
A.P. SINGH v. T.B. PRAJAPATI 
43 
a deed of rectification in favour of the appellant on noticing an error A 
in description of the suit property in the map attached to the sale deed 
executed in 1965. During the course of demarcation proceedings, it was 
found that respondent no. I, a non-triba!, had encroached upon some 
portion of the suit land belonging to the appellant. The appellant filed 
a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and issuan·ce of B 
preventive injunction against the respondent-defendants. The respond-
ents claimed possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession 
over the suit land since they were in possession for a period of more 
than 12 years. The trial court decreed the suit. In appeal, the High 
Court held in favour of the respondents on the ground of adverse C 
possession. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the trial court 
with certain directions, the Court 
HELD : I.I. Tribal areas have their own problems. Tribals are D 
historically weaker sections of the society. They need the protection of 
the laws as they are gullible and fall prey to the tactics of unscrupulous 
people and are susceptible to exploitation on account of their inno-
cence, poverty and backwardness exten_ding over centuries. The Con-
stitution of India and the laws made thereunder treat tribals and tribal E 
areas separately wherever needed. The tribals need to be settled, need 
to be taken care of by the protective arm of the law, and be saved from 
falling prey to unscrupulous device so that they may prosper and by 
an evolutionary process join the mainstream of the society. The process 
would be slow, yet it has to be initiated and kept moving. The object F 
sought to be achieved by the Orissa Merged State (Laws) Act, 1950 and 
the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By 
Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 is to see that a member of an 
aboriginal tribe indefeatably continues to own the property which he 
acquires and every process known to law by which title in immovable 
property is extinguished in one person to vest in another person, should G 
remain so confined in its operation in relation to tribals that the 
immovable property of one tribal may come to vest in another tribal 
., but the title in immovable property vesting in any tribal must not come 
to vest in a non-tribal. This is to see and·ensure that non-tribals cio not 
succeed in making inroads amongst the tribals by acquiring property H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A and developing roots 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.