Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.54 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949
Section 27 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Gamini Krishnayya And Others vs Curza Seshachalam And Others on 31 August, 1964
Their Lordship referred to three
earlier decisions of this Court, namely, Manchegowda Vs. State of
Karnataka, (1984) 3 SCR 502, Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCR 224, Gamini Krishnayya Vs.
Guraza Seshachalam, (1965) 1 SCR 195, and a decision of House of
Lords in D (a minor) Vs. Bershire County Council, (1987) 1 All ER
20 (HL) laying down the proposition that a broad and liberal
construction should be given to give full effect to the legislative
purpose.
State Of U.P. vs Babu Lal on 8 October, 1976
The law laid down by this Court is an authority for the
proposition that the Court shall step in and annul any such transaction
as would have the effect of violating a provision of law, more so when
it is a beneficial piece of social legislation. A simple declaratory
decree passed by a civil court which had the effect of extinguishing
the title of a member of a Schedule Tribe and vesting the same in a
non-member, was construed as 'transfer' within the meaning of
Section 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Thus, we are
very clear in our minds that the expression 'transfer of immovable
property' as defined in clause (f) of para 2 of the 1956 Regulations
has to be assigned a very wide meaning. Any transaction or dealing
with immovable property which would have the effect of
extinguishing title, possession or right to possess such property in a
tribal and vesting the same in a non-tribal, would be included within
the meaning of 'transfer of immovable property'.
Jagdish Prasad And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 1992
In a series of decisions, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has
been consistently taking this view. To wit, see Jagdish Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1993 MP 132, Wajeram Vs. Kaniram, 1992
Revenue Nirnaya 270, Dinesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1995 Revenue Nirnaya 358.
Laxmi Gouda And Ors. vs Dandasi Goura (Deceased By L.R.) And ... on 19 June, 1990
The learned counsel for the respondents relied heavily on Para
7-D of the 1956 Regulations and upon two decisions of the Orissa
High Court rendered by reference thereto namely Laxmi Gouda &
Ors. Vs. Dandasi Goura (deceased by LR) & Ors., AIR 1992 Orissa
5 and Madhia Nayak Vs. Arjuna Pradhan & Ors., 65 (1988) Cuttack
Law Times 360. We have carefully perused both the decisions. The
question which arose for decision therein was the effect of amendment
made in Para 7-D of the Regulations and given a retrospective
operation with effect from a back date. The High Court has held that
if adverse possession extending over a period of 12 years had already
stood perfected into acquisition of title before the date of the
amendment, then the amended provision could not be read so as to
extend the period of 12 years of acquisition of title by adverse
possession substituted as 30 years even if such date fell after
2.10.1973, the date with which the amendment commenced operating.
The question which is arising for decision before us namely whether a
non-tribal can at all commence prescribing acquisition of title of
adverse possession over the land belonging to a tribal and situated in a
tribal area was neither raised before the High Court nor decided by it.
A judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not
for what can be read into it by implication or by assigning an assumed
intention to the Judges, and inferring from it a proposition of law
which the Judges have not specifically laid down in the
pronouncement. Still we make it clear that the provisions of Para 7-D
of the Regulations are to be read in the light of the principle which we
have laid down hereinabove. A tribal may acquire title by adverse
possession over the immovable property of another tribal by reference
to Para 7-D of the Regulations read with Article 65 and Section 27 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, but a non-tribal can neither prescribe nor
acquire title by adverse possession over the property belonging to a
tribal as the same is specifically prohibited by a special law
promulgated by the State legislature or the Governor in exercise of the
power conferred in that regard by the Constitution of India. A general
law cannot defeat the provisions of a special law to the extent to
which they are in conflict; else an effort has to be made at reconciling
the two provisions by homogenous reading.