Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Sanjay Baburao Teli, SDO, Khed, has filed his affidavit stating that the subject land was purchased by the Occupants in WP/ ST/1338/2020 under the provisions of Section 32G of the BTAL Act, and that the transfer of such land is subject to previous sanction of the Collector. The subject land in the other group of matters, was owned by the Government. By Order dated 16.03.1976 the said land was allotted to the Occupants-the landless tribals, under the provisions of Section 20 and 21 of MLRC, on new and restricted tenure. He has stated that the transfer of an occupancy of the said land is subject to previous sanction of the Collector and approval of the State Government under Section 36A of the MLRC. He has stated that the Petitioner has entered into agreements with the Occupants without obtaining prior sanction under Section 36A of the MLRC. He has further stated that the order of the Civil Court is not enforceable in view of the bar under pps 32 of 139 TRIBAL WP ST 1338 -20.doc Section 36(C) of the MLRC. It is stated that referring the dispute to the Civil Court would be against public policy and would deprive the tribals of their legitimate claim.

13. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners can be summarized as under:-

pps                                                                  33 of 139
                                                     TRIBAL WP ST 1338 -20.doc

      (i)     Prior sanction under Section 36A of MLRC is required only

when occupancy of a tribal is transferred to a non-tribal. It is submitted that the Occupants had not disclosed that they were tribals. Their claim has not been verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Under the circumstances, the learned SDO was not justified in holding that the Occupants are tribals and further that the agreements are not enforceable and /or are void for want of prior sanction under Section 36A of MLRC.

(iv) Right to receive compensation is an independent and distinct right. Transfer of such right does not amount to transfer of 'occupancy' within the meaning of Section 2(22) of MLRC as to attract restrictions under Section 36A of MLRC.

(v) Relying upon the decision of this Court in Dossibai Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy vs. P.M.Bharucha 1958 (60) Bom. LR 1208, it is contended that the "person interested" in the land under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act would include a person who claims interest in compensation to be paid on account of acquisition of land. The right to receive compensation is not restricted to those persons who have legal or propriety interest in the land and is available to all those who have right or claim to land even if such pps 35 of 139 TRIBAL WP ST 1338 -20.doc right or claim does not amount to legal or proprietary estate or interest in the land.

45. It may be mentioned that sub-Section (1) of Section 36A imposes restriction on the transfer of occupancy without prior sanction of the Collector and approval of the Government. Whereas, sub Sections (4) and (5) of Section 36 of the MLRC pps 80 of 139 TRIBAL WP ST 1338 -20.doc impose statutory duty on the Collector to hold an inquiry either suo- moto or on an application made by any person interested in such occupancy, and decide whether the transfer of occupancy is in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 36A. When the transfer of occupancy is held to be in contravention of sub-Section (1), the Collector is under a mandate to declare such transfer to be invalid and restore possession of occupancy to the tribal on compliance of requirement under sub-Section (6) of Section 36 of the MLRC. The scheme of sub-Section (4) is predominantly a remedial measure for securing restoration of transfer and not validation of transfer, which is effected in contravention of sub-Section (1) of Section 36 of the MLRC.