LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a daughter from a Scheduled Tribe is entitled to a share of compensation for land acquired, based on survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition/Civil Law
Case Name: Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
Judgment Date: 9 December 2022
Date of the Judgment: 9 December 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6901 of 2022
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a daughter belonging to a Scheduled Tribe claim a share of compensation for land acquired that originally belonged to her paternal ancestor? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act to tribal communities. The core issue revolved around whether a daughter from a Scheduled Tribe could claim a share of compensation for land acquired, based on survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act. The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The land in question originally belonged to Satyananda Negi, the common ancestor of the appellant and other coparceners. Satyananda had two sons, Chakradhar and Gajadhar. Chakradhar had four sons (Chintamani, Parakhita, Basudev, and Kulamani) and a daughter, Kamla (the appellant). Gajadhar had two daughters, Kumari and Kumudini. The land, Khasra No. 81, Mouza Kopsingha, was acquired, and compensation of Rs. 5,97,35,754 was awarded to the respondents, including the sons of Chakradhar and the daughters of Gajadhar. Kamla, the daughter of Chakradhar, claimed a 1/5th share in the compensation, leading to a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Land originally recorded in the name of Satyananda Negi. |
| N/A | Satyananda Negi dies, leaving behind two sons Chakradhar and Gajadhar. |
| 1948 | Chakradhar dies, leaving behind four sons and one daughter (Kamla, the appellant). |
| N/A | Gajadhar dies, leaving behind two daughters, Kumari and Kumudini. |
| N/A | Land acquired by the Government for Ultra Mega Power Project. |
| N/A | Compensation of Rs. 5,97,35,754 settled in favour of respondents (sons of Chakradhar and daughters of Gajadhar). |
| N/A | Kamla claims 1/5th share, leading to a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. |
| N/A | Reference Court rejects Kamla’s claim. |
| N/A | High Court dismisses Kamla’s appeal. |
| 9 December 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Legal Framework
The core of the legal dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states:
“Section 2(2): This Act shall not apply to any member of the Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
This provision exempts members of Scheduled Tribes from the application of the Hindu Succession Act unless the Central Government specifies otherwise. The appellant argued that the denial of succession rights to Scheduled Tribe women violates Article 21 of the Constitution (right to livelihood) and constitutes gender-based discrimination. The respondents contended that since the parties are members of a Scheduled Tribe, the Hindu Succession Act does not apply, and the daughter has no right to survivorship in the joint family property. They also argued that the appellant’s father died in 1948, before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, the Act cannot be applied retrospectively.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellant, being a daughter, is entitled to a share in the compensation amount, even under the Hindu Succession Act.
- ✓ Denial of succession rights to Scheduled Tribe women deprives them of their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- ✓ Exclusive succession in the male line should be suspended until the immediate female relatives of the last male tenant no longer depend on the land for livelihood.
- ✓ Denying equal rights to women/daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribes is gender-based discrimination.
- ✓ Relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Kishwar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 125, to support the claim that daughters are entitled to a share in compensation.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The parties are members of a Scheduled Tribe, and thus, the Hindu Succession Act does not apply.
- ✓ The land devolved upon Chakradhar and Gajadhar with the right of survivorship, and after Chakradhar’s death in 1948, his share devolved upon his four sons.
- ✓ The appellant is not entitled to a share under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act because her father died before the Act’s enactment.
- ✓ Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes, and the Act cannot be applied retrospectively.
- ✓ The Hindu Succession Act only applies to Scheduled Tribes if they follow Hindu customs and practices, which was not proven in this case.
- ✓ Whenever there is a conflict between law and equity, the law prevails.
- ✓ Relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 587, B. Premananda and Ors. Vs. Mohan Koikal and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 266, J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR (2003) SC 1405 and State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh, JT 2004 (10) SC 349.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Argument (Appellant) | Sub-Argument (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Hindu Succession Act | Daughter is entitled to share under the Act. | Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2). |
| Right to Livelihood and Equality | Denial of succession violates Article 21 and is gender-based discrimination. | Law prevails over equity; no retrospective application of the Act. |
| Succession Rights | Exclusive male succession should be suspended for female dependents. | Land devolved to sons by survivorship; father died before the Act. |
| Customary Practices | No evidence of Hinduisation to apply the Act. | |
| Precedents | Relied on Madhu Kishwar case. | Relied on Labishwar Manjhi, B. Premananda, J.P. Bansal, and Govind Singh cases. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
✓ Whether the appellant/petitioner, being the daughter, is entitled to a share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on a survivorship basis under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the daughter is entitled to a share in compensation under the Hindu Succession Act? | No. | Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application, and no amendment has been made to change this. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Madhu Kishwar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 125 | Supreme Court of India | The Court noted that the majority in this case refused to strike down provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, which provided succession to property in the male line. However, it carved out an intervening right for female dependents. The court also noted that the minority view in this case held that the Hindu Succession Act would apply to Scheduled Tribes as the general principles are consistent with justice, equity, and good conscience. |
| Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 587 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondents to argue that the Hindu Succession Act only applies to Scheduled Tribes if they follow Hindu customs and practices, which was not proven in this case. |
| B. Premananda and Ors. Vs. Mohan Koikal and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 266 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondents to argue that whenever there is a conflict between law and equity, the law prevails. |
| J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR (2003) SC 1405 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondents to emphasize that it is for the legislature to amend the law, not the Court. |
| State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh, JT 2004 (10) SC 349 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondents to emphasize that it is for the legislature to amend the law, not the Court. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- ✓ Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section states that the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise.
- ✓ Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act: This section provides for reference to the court in case of disputes regarding apportionment of compensation.
- ✓ Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, argued by the appellant to include the right to livelihood.
- ✓ Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to equality before the law.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Daughter is entitled to a share under the Hindu Succession Act. | Rejected, as Section 2(2) of the Act specifically excludes Scheduled Tribes. |
| Appellant | Denial of succession violates Article 21 and is gender-based discrimination. | Acknowledged the equity of the argument but held that the law must prevail. |
| Appellant | Exclusive male succession should be suspended for female dependents. | Not accepted due to the specific exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. |
| Appellant | Relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Kishwar case. | The Court noted that the majority in Madhu Kishwar refused to strike down provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, which provided succession to property in the male line. However, it carved out an intervening right for female dependents. The court also noted that the minority view in this case held that the Hindu Succession Act would apply to Scheduled Tribes as the general principles are consistent with justice, equity, and good conscience. |
| Respondents | Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes. | Accepted, based on Section 2(2) of the Act. |
| Respondents | Land devolved to sons by survivorship; father died before the Act. | Accepted as a valid point supporting the inapplicability of the Act. |
| Respondents | No evidence of Hinduisation to apply the Act. | Accepted, further supporting the inapplicability of the Act. |
| Respondents | Whenever there is a conflict between law and equity, the law prevails. | Accepted, stating that equity can only supplement the law but not supplant it. |
| Respondents | Relied on Labishwar Manjhi, B. Premananda, J.P. Bansal, and Govind Singh cases. | The court accepted the interpretation of these cases that law should prevail over equity and that it is for the legislature to amend the law. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Madhu Kishwar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 125: The court acknowledged the minority view that the Hindu Succession Act should apply to Scheduled Tribes, but noted that the majority view did not strike down the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
- ✓ Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 587: The court accepted the respondent’s argument that this case held that the Hindu Succession Act only applies to Scheduled Tribes if they follow Hindu customs and practices.
- ✓ B. Premananda and Ors. Vs. Mohan Koikal and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 266: The court agreed with the respondent’s reliance on this case that law prevails over equity.
- ✓ J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR (2003) SC 1405 and State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh, JT 2004 (10) SC 349: The court accepted the respondent’s argument that these cases held that it is for the legislature to amend the law, not the court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court acknowledged the equitable argument in favor of the appellant, noting that denying survivorship rights to a daughter in the property of her father is not justifiable in the present scenario. However, the court emphasized that it is bound by the existing law, specifically Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, which excludes Scheduled Tribes. The court noted that while it is sympathetic to the appellant’s case, it cannot amend the law, and it is for the legislature to take appropriate action. The Court also observed that there is no justification to deny the right of survivorship to a female member of the tribal community, especially when non-tribal daughters are entitled to equal shares in their father’s property. The Court directed the Central Government to examine the matter and consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to include Scheduled Tribes.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Sympathy for the Appellant | 30% |
| Adherence to the Law | 50% |
| Need for Legislative Action | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court reasoned that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its application unless the Central Government directs otherwise. The court acknowledged the appellant’s argument based on equity and the need for gender equality, but emphasized that it is bound by the existing law. The court stated that it cannot amend the law and that it is for the legislature to do so. The court also noted that while it is sympathetic to the appellant’s case, it cannot grant the benefit of survivorship to the daughter in the property of the father as it would be tantamount to amending the law.
The court quoted the following from the judgment:
- ✓ “Therefore, so long as Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act stands and there is no amendment, the parties shall be governed by the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.”
- ✓ “If the claim of the appellant on the basis of the survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act is accepted in that case it would tantamount to amend the law. It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court.”
- ✓ “When the daughter belonging to the non-tribal is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny such right to the daughter of the Tribal community.”
The Court did not have any dissenting opinion. The court’s decision highlights the limitations of judicial intervention when there is a clear statutory provision, even if it leads to inequitable outcomes. The court emphasized that it is for the legislature to take action to address the gender inequality faced by Scheduled Tribe women in matters of succession.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Hindu Succession Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification to that effect.
- ✓ Daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribes are not entitled to a share in their father’s property based on survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act.
- ✓ The Supreme Court has acknowledged the need for legislative action to address the gender inequality faced by Scheduled Tribe women in matters of succession.
- ✓ The Central Government has been directed to examine the matter and consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to include Scheduled Tribes.
- ✓ This judgment highlights the conflict between the existing legal framework and the principles of gender equality and social justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to examine the question of withdrawing the exemptions provided under the Hindu Succession Act for Scheduled Tribes and to consider bringing a suitable amendment to the Act. The Court expressed hope that the Central Government would take an appropriate decision, considering the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its application, and therefore, daughters from Scheduled Tribes cannot claim a share in their father’s property based on survivorship under the Act. This judgment does not change the existing position of the law. However, it highlights the need for legislative intervention to address the gender inequality faced by Scheduled Tribe women in matters of succession. The court has acknowledged the inequity and directed the Central Government to consider amending the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a daughter from a Scheduled Tribe is not entitled to a share in the compensation for land acquired, based on survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act. The Court emphasized that Section 2(2) of the Act explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes, and it is for the legislature to amend the law. The Court, however, directed the Central Government to examine the matter and consider amending the Act to ensure gender equality for Scheduled Tribe women in matters of succession.