Supreme Court Restores Land to Tribal Member, Upholding Section 170B of the MP Land Revenue Code: Pooran Singh vs. Dhaniram (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 14, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 228
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a civil court overturn a High Court decision regarding land rights of tribal members? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the interpretation of Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Court held that a civil court cannot overturn a High Court decision. The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

This case revolves around a land dispute in Chhattisgarh. Beniram Gond, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, sold 5.36 acres of agricultural land to Dhaniram, a non-tribal, on October 9, 1964, for Rs. 2,400. The land was located in Village Naragaon, Tehsil Balod, District Durg. The appellant, Pooran Singh, is Beniram’s son, and the respondents are the legal heirs of Dhaniram, who has since passed away.

In 1980, Section 170B was added to the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, to protect tribal land from fraudulent transfers. This provision mandated that non-tribals in possession of tribal land between October 2, 1959, and the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1980, had to notify the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) about their possession within two years. Failure to do so would result in the land reverting to the original tribal owner or their legal heirs.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Beniram initiated proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Balod, under Section 170B of the MP Land Revenue Code. Initially, the SDO rejected the plea on July 28, 1984. However, the Collector, Durg, allowed Beniram’s appeal on June 5, 1985, ordering the land to be reverted to him. This decision was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, on June 11, 1986, when Dhaniram’s appeal was dismissed.

Dhaniram then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the order under Section 170B. The High Court dismissed the petition on February 16, 1987, finding no error in the Collector’s order. Following this, the possession of the land was restored to Beniram on July 19, 1986.

Dhaniram then filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge Class II, Balod, seeking a permanent injunction, possession, and a declaration that the Collector’s order was null and void. The Trial Court rejected the suit on December 11, 1995. However, the District Judge, Durg, overturned this decision in a first appeal, decreeing the suit in favor of Dhaniram. The appellant, Pooran Singh, then challenged this order in a Second Appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed on February 25, 2015, leading to the current proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which was inserted to protect tribal land from fraudulent transfers. This section states:

“170B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. – (1) Every person who on the date of commencement of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (67) of Section 165 between the period commencing on the 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within two years of such commencement, notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has come in possession of such land.”

Section 170B(2) further provides that if a person fails to notify the SDO within the stipulated period, it is presumed that they are in possession of the land without lawful authority, and the land shall revert to the original tribal owner or their legal heirs.

Additionally, Section 257 of the MP Land Revenue Code was amended to include clause (l-1), which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters covered under Section 170B. This amendment was introduced on December 15, 1995.

“257. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters :-
(l-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B.”

The court also considered the constitutional framework concerning the protection of tribal lands under Article 244 of the Constitution.

Arguments

The appellant, Pooran Singh, argued that the civil suit filed by Dhaniram was not maintainable due to the bar under Section 257(l-1) of the MP Land Revenue Code, which prohibits civil courts from entertaining suits related to matters under Section 170B. Additionally, the appellant contended that the High Court’s earlier decision in 1987, which upheld the Collector’s order under Section 170B, operated as res judicata, preventing the civil court from re-examining the matter.

The respondents, legal heirs of Dhaniram, argued that the Collector did not conduct a proper inquiry under Section 170B before ordering the reversion of the land. They also argued that the presumption under Section 170B is rebuttable and that the amendment introducing Section 257(l-1) on December 15, 1995, would not apply to the suit which was instituted on February 18, 1992.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether it was open to the respondent to institute a suit to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Durg on 5 June 1985, when an earlier challenge to the legality of the order had culminated in the final judgment of the High Court on 16 February 1987.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court did not specifically cite any cases or books in its judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: This provision deals with the reversion of land belonging to members of aboriginal tribes that was transferred through fraud. The Court examined the conditions under which land could revert to the original tribal owner, particularly when the non-tribal possessor failed to notify the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) as required.

• Section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: This section, particularly clause (l-1) introduced by amendment, bars civil courts from entertaining any suit related to matters covered under Section 170B. The Court considered whether this bar applied to the case at hand.

• Article 244 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas. The Court implicitly considered the constitutional framework within which the protection of tribal land is placed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the civil court could not overturn the High Court’s decision of February 16, 1987. The High Court had already examined the legality of the Collector’s order under Section 170B, and its decision was final.

The Court stated, “Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the final judgment and order of the High Court dated 16 February 1987, it was not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary.”

The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in ignoring the effect of the earlier order dated 16 February 1987. The Court concluded that the civil suit filed by Dhaniram was an attempt to re-litigate a matter that had already been decided by the High Court.

The Court stated, “The High Court, in our view, has manifestly erred in ignoring the clear effect of the earlier order dated 16 February 1987.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment of February 25, 2015, and restored the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the civil suit filed by Dhaniram.

The Court stated, “For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High court dated 25 February 2015. In consequence, we restore the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing Civil Suit No. 20A of 1992 instituted by the respondent. There shall be no orders as to costs.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of res judicata and the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 257(l-1) of the MP Land Revenue Code. The Court emphasized the finality of the High Court’s decision in 1987, which had already adjudicated the legality of the Collector’s order under Section 170B. The Court’s reasoning focused on upholding the integrity of the judicial process and preventing endless litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Finality of High Court Decisions: Once a High Court has decided on a matter, a civil court cannot overturn that decision on the same issue.

• Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction: Section 257(l-1) of the MP Land Revenue Code bars civil courts from entertaining suits related to matters under Section 170B.

• Protection of Tribal Land: The judgment underscores the importance of protecting tribal lands and the legal mechanisms put in place to prevent fraudulent transfers.

• Res Judicata: The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of issues that have been finally decided by a competent court.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The judgment primarily focused on setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Trial Court’s decision, which dismissed the civil suit filed by Dhaniram.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a civil court cannot overturn a High Court decision on the same issue, especially when the High Court has already adjudicated on the legality of the order in question. The judgment reinforces the principle of res judicata and the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 257(l-1) of the MP Land Revenue Code. This ruling clarifies the scope of civil court jurisdiction in matters related to tribal land transfers under Section 170B.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pooran Singh vs. Dhaniram upholds the protection of tribal land rights by preventing civil courts from re-litigating matters already decided by the High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of the finality of judicial decisions and the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction in matters related to Section 170B of the MP Land Revenue Code. The decision ensures that tribal landowners are not subjected to endless litigation and that their land rights are protected under the law.