BHAIJI versus SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THANDLA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 16-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
BHAIJI 
V. 
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THANDLA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.) 
Land Laws: 
MP. Land Revenue Code, i959: 
Section i70B-Transfer of/and owned by aboriginal tribal to aboriginal 
tribal-Applicability of the provision to such transaction-Held, its applicability 
is wide-it is not confined to transaction by aboriginal tribal to non-aboriginal 
tribal, but also to transaction to aboriginal tribal. 
Sections I 70B(i), (2). and (3) and sub-section (2-A)-Distinction 
between-Discussed 
interpretation of statutes: interpretation of previous statute by reference 
to the statute enacted subsequently-Held, not correct. 
Statement of Objects and Reasons of Statute-Aid of-Scope-Held, it 
is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, 
surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the 
statute sought to remedy-But it cannot be utilized/or the purpose of restricting 
and controlling the plain meaning of the language employed in the statute and 
p for excluding from its operation such transactions which ii plainly covers. 
The land in question was owned by members of a tribe which had 
been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under Section 165(6) of M.P. Land 
Re\•enue Code, 1959 as contemplated by Section 1708(1) of the Code. The 
appellant claimed to be a similar aboriginal tribal. The land was sold by 
' 
G the aboriginal tribal bhumiswamis through registered sale deeds to the 
H 
appellant, during the period attracting applicability of Section 1708(1). 
The appellant did not furnish the information in the form and in the 
manner prescribed, within period of two years. Sub-Divisional Officer 
initiated proceedings under Section 1708(1) of the Code and issued show 
116 
" 
BHAIJI v. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THANDLA 
11 7 
cause notice. Appellant filed writ petition in High Court on the ground A 
that the appellant and the vendor bhumiswamis, both being aboriginal 
tribals, the applicability of Section 1708 was not attracted and, therefore, 
the notice issued by the SDO was illegal and without any authority in law. 
The Writ Petition \yas dismissed by High Court. 
Jn appeal to this Court appellant contended that in view of scheme B 
of the Code, specially Sections 165, 168, 170A and 1708 thereof, it is clear 
that Section 1708 proposes to embrace within its fold only such 
transactions which are fraudulent and entered into by aboriginal in favour 
of non-tribals; the statements of objects and reasons and language of sub-
section (2A) of Section 170 B makes it clear that legislature had intended C 
to enact the provisions for enquiry into transfers made by members of 
aboriginal tribe to non-tribals. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The petition filed by the writ petitioner before the High D 
Court was entirely misconceived and, in a way, premature. The show cause 
notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be said to be without 
jurisdiction. The appellant should have participated in the enquiry after 
showing cause. ( 126-H) 
I.2. The purpose of enacting Section 1708 of the Code is very wide. E 
The object sought to be achieved, as its drafting indicates, is to gather and 
make available all statistics with the State officials so as to find out how 
much land belonging to aboriginal tribals is in possession of anyone to 
whom it does not belong as on the cut off date. Nowhere in the entire 
scheme of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of-Section 170 B of M.P. Land F 
Revenue Code, 1959 as enacted in 1.\180, there is the least indication of 
confining the applicability of the provision to such transactions of transfer 
as were entered into by a member of aboriginal tribe in favour of a 
member not belonging to aboriginal tribe. No exception has been enacted 
by the Legislature so as to exclude from the purview of Section 1708, 
transactions of transfer between two persons both of whom are members G 
of aborigin!ll tribes. Had it been so, the Legislature would have specifically 
said so. The language of the Section as drafted in 1980 is clear and 
unambiguous and does not admit of any doubt so far as this aspect is 
concerned. 1123-E-F; 124-A-CI 
,,,,. 
H 
-
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dhirendra Nath Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR 
(1986) MP 122 and Atmaram and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1995) 
MPLJ 633, referred to. 
2.1. Sub-section (2-A)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.