DEONARAYAN SINGH AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF BHAGALPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 22-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DEONARA YAN SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF BHAGALPUR AND ORS. 
APRIL 22, 1997 
. (S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) 
Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949-Ss. 
20( 1) & (5), S. 42 Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872-S. 27( I) 
and (3 )--Moo/ Raiyat-Transfer of rights by--17wugh transfer of land could 
have been cancelled under S. 27(3) of the Regulation, the facts of the case 
show that competent auth01ities after taking time for scmtiny, and using their . 
discretion regularised the tramfer and allowed mutation whereby a 1ight ac-
cmed to the tr an sf ero,._lf earlier transaction is not illegal, later transactions 
flowing therefrom cannot be illega~Since neither the re-enacted S. 20( 1) of 
A 
B 
c 
the Act nor the repealed S. 27 of the Regulation does not seek to negate the . D 
final orders passed by competent authorities, any right/privilege/ obliga-
tio11/liability accmed under the earlier repealed section will continue-Bihar 
General-Clauses Act. 1917-S. 8. 
One B, who was appointed Mool Raiyat along with his brothers, to 
pay off their debts, sold an 8 anna interest in the Mool Raiyat comprising 
of 38 acres and 9 decimals, to BK in 1939 who got his name mutated in 
the revenue records, after due approval of the authorities. Later, BK, sold 
his entire right, title and interest in the said lands to R, the father of the 
appellants, who also got his name mutated in the revenue records. Even 
so, the contesting respondents sought to disturb his possession and 
started proceedings under S. 145 of Cr.P.C. The SDO ruled in favour of 
R. A Revision petition was rejected by the Sessions Court. On the death of 
E 
F 
R, his son M, was appointed Mool Raiyat. In 1970-71, the respondents laid 
claim as original co-sharers of the said lands and filed an application 
before the SDO, praying for eviction of the appellants under S. 20(5) read 
uith S. 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) G 
Act 1949. On rejection of the application, an appeal was filed which was 
allowed and eviction ordered by the Additionlll Deputy Commissioner on 
the ground that the original sale to BK, was violative of S. 27(1) of the 
Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 and hence all following 
transactions were void. When the Appeal from this order was rejected, H 
941 
942 
SUPREMECOURl REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A appellants went to the High Court on a Writ Petition. A Full Bench, relying 
on an earlier judgment of a Full Court in Bhauri Lal Jain and Another v. 
Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara and Others, AIR (1973) Patna, 1, rejected 
their case upon which an appeal was preferred to this Court. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. BK was a Raiyat who was recognised as the Moot Raiyat 
by the competent authorities under the Regulation. His entire right, title 
and interest in the said land which was an alienable jote was transferred 
under the said second transaction in favour of the appellants father. The 
C right to transfer was duly recorded in the Record of Rights and required 
the transferor to transfer if at all his entire right, title and interest in the 
Mool Raiyat. That was precisely what done by BK in favour of the 
appellants' father by transaction dated 26th June 1950. Therefore, this 
transaction did not offend the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act. If that 
is so, it remained fully within the four corners of the said provision and 
D could not be treated to be illegal or invalid from any angle. Consequently 
there would remain no occasion for the authorities to invoke Section 20(5) 
of the Act read with Section 42 thereof in connection with this latter trans-
action of sale dated 26th June 1950. Ali authorities below as well as the High 
Court by the impugned judgment have considered the invalidity of the first 
E transaction of sale dated 22nd March 1939 and in that light they have 
voided the second transaction as a consequential transaction. Once the 
nexus between the two sales gets snapped and the earlier transaction by 
itself cannot be found fault with from any angle, then there would remain 
no occasion for the respondent-authorities to invoke the provisions of 
Section 20(1) read with sub-section (5) and Section 42 of the Act in connec-
F 
tion with even the second sale transaction dated 26th June 1950. Once that 
conclusion is reached the result becomes obvious. On these peculiar facts 
there is no escape from the conclusion t

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