LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an under-raiyat can transfer their land rights despite a statutory bar. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Land Rights. Case Name: Aftaruddin (Dead) Rep. Thr. Lrs. vs. Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta & Ors. Judgment Date: 08 December 2017

Can an under-raiyat, a tenant-like landholder, transfer their land rights despite legal restrictions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving land rights in Tripura. This case clarifies the limitations on land transfers by under-raiyats, emphasizing the importance of agrarian reform laws. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Tripura. Sayed Jama Kazi was the original owner (raiyat) of the land. Aftaruddin was an under-raiyat, holding rights similar to a tenant. According to revenue records from 1965-66 and 1996, Aftaruddin was recorded as an under-raiyat. On January 11, 1971, Aftaruddin allegedly sold the entire land to Mamataj Begam, daughter of Sayed Jama Kazi. Subsequently, on November 27, 1971, Mamataj Begam and Sayed Jama Kazi sold the land to Ramkrishna Datta and Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh, the plaintiffs. Later, on April 6, 1981, Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh sold a portion of his land to Lalit Mohan Ghosh, the third plaintiff. Despite these transactions, Aftaruddin remained in possession of the land. The plaintiffs then filed a suit seeking a declaration of their title and an injunction to stop Aftaruddin from interfering with their land.

Timeline

Date Event
1965-66 Revenue records show Aftaruddin as an under-raiyat.
15.03.1996 Revenue Khatiyan No.302 published showing Aftaruddin as an under-raiyat.
January 11, 1971 Aftaruddin allegedly executes a sale deed to Mamataj Begam.
November 27, 1971 Mamataj Begam and Sayed Jama Kazi sell the land to plaintiffs 1 and 2.
April 6, 1981 Plaintiff 2 sells a portion of the land to plaintiff 3.
1987 Aftaruddin was conferred the rights of the raiyat.

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that while the sale deed was executed, Aftaruddin could not transfer his rights as an under-raiyat. The first appellate court upheld this decision. However, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of fact, stating that Aftaruddin had represented himself as a raiyat in the sale deed. The High Court also applied Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, stating that the subsequent vendees could not be denied their rights.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (TLR&LR Act). Section 2(s) of the TLR&LR Act defines a “raiyat” as a person who owns land for agriculture and pays revenue to the government. Section 2(v) defines an “under-raiyat” as someone who cultivates land under an agreement with a raiyat, paying rent in cash, kind, or a share of the produce. This includes a bargadar. Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act is crucial, stating:

“108. (1) The interest of under-raiyat in any land held by him as such shall be heritable but, save as otherwise provided in this Act, shall not be transferable. (2) No under-raiyat shall be evicted from his land except as provided in this Act.”

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Prior Partition of Joint Family Property: K. Arumuga Velaiah vs. P.R. Ramasamy (27 January 2022)

This provision clearly prohibits an under-raiyat from transferring their interest in the land, although such interest is heritable. The Act aims to protect under-raiyats from eviction and forced transfers.

Arguments

Aftaruddin, the defendant, argued that he never executed the sale deed. He also contended that, as an under-raiyat, he was legally barred from transferring his land rights under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that Aftaruddin represented himself as a raiyat in the sale deed. They also argued that since Aftaruddin later acquired raiyat rights in 1987, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act would validate the sale deed in their favor.

The High Court had accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that Aftaruddin’s representation as a raiyat in the sale deed should negate the bar under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. It also held that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to protect the rights of the subsequent purchasers. The Supreme Court found this interpretation to be erroneous.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions Party
Validity of Sale Deed Sale deed was never executed by Aftaruddin Aftaruddin
Aftaruddin represented himself as a raiyat in the sale deed, thus Section 108 does not apply. Plaintiffs
Transfer of Rights Under-raiyat cannot transfer rights under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. Aftaruddin
Aftaruddin acquired raiyat rights in 1987, validating the sale deed under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Plaintiffs

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the central issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court and whether the sale deed executed by Aftaruddin was valid given the bar under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact without any substantial question of law arising in the second appeal.
Whether the sale deed executed by Aftaruddin was valid given the bar under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. The Supreme Court held that the sale deed was invalid because Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act prohibits an under-raiyat from transferring their rights. The Court found that the sale deed was a subterfuge to bypass the statutory prohibition.

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, specifically:

  • Section 2(s) defining “raiyat”
  • Section 2(v) defining “under-raiyat”
  • Section 108 which restricts the transfer of rights by an under-raiyat.

The court also considered Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, but held that it was not applicable in this case.

Authority How it was used by the Court
Section 2(s), Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 Defined “raiyat” to distinguish from “under-raiyat”.
Section 2(v), Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 Defined “under-raiyat” to establish Aftaruddin’s status.
Section 108, Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 Used to show the statutory bar on transfer of rights by under-raiyats.
Section 43, Transfer of Property Act The court held that it was not applicable in this case.
See also  Supreme Court Corrects Typographical Errors in Magadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. Judgment (20 October 2021)

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
Sale deed was never executed by Aftaruddin The court did not go into this submission as it was not the main issue.
Aftaruddin represented himself as a raiyat in the sale deed, thus Section 108 does not apply. Rejected. The court held that this was a subterfuge to bypass the statutory bar.
Under-raiyat cannot transfer rights under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. Accepted. The court upheld the statutory bar on transfer of rights by under-raiyats.
Aftaruddin acquired raiyat rights in 1987, validating the sale deed under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Rejected. The court held that no sale deed was executed by Aftaruddin in favour of the plaintiffs.
Authority Court’s View
Section 2(s), Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 The court used this definition to distinguish a “raiyat” from an “under-raiyat”.
Section 2(v), Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 The court used this definition to establish Aftaruddin’s status as an “under-raiyat”.
Section 108, Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 The court emphasized this provision to highlight the statutory bar on transfer of rights by an under-raiyat.
Section 43, Transfer of Property Act The court held that it was not applicable in this case because the sale deed was not valid to begin with.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the statutory bar imposed by Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the Act, which was to protect under-raiyats from exploitation and forced transfers. The Court also noted that the sale deed was a subterfuge to bypass the statutory bar. The fact that the vendee was the daughter of the raiyat also weighed in the mind of the court. The court also noted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact without any substantial question of law.

Reason Percentage
Statutory bar under Section 108 of TLR&LR Act 40%
Legislative intent to protect under-raiyats 30%
Sale deed was a subterfuge 20%
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%
Issue: Validity of sale by under-raiyat
↓
Section 108 of TLR&LR Act prohibits transfer by under-raiyat
↓
Sale deed was a subterfuge to bypass the law
↓
Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act does not apply
↓
Sale deed is invalid

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact without a substantial question of law. The Court emphasized that the sale deed was a clear violation of Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. The Court also rejected the argument that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could validate the sale deed, as there was no valid sale deed executed by Aftaruddin in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court noted that the plaintiffs’ remedy, if any, lay against Sayed Jama Kazi and Mamataj Begam, who were not even made parties to the suit. The court observed:
“The plaintiffs who were subsequent purchasers cannot take benefit of the subterfuge and fraud committed by Sayed Jama Kazi and Mohd. Aftaruddin.”

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Oral Sale Agreement: Manjit Singh vs. Darshana Devi (21 November 2024)

The Court further stated:
“The protection under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act which is a statutory protection could not have been taken away by the subterfuge committed by the then raiyat.”

The Court also observed:
“We are clearly of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact without any question of law much less a substantial question of law arising in the second appeal.”

Key Takeaways

  • ✓ Under-raiyats are legally restricted from transferring their land rights under Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
  • ✓ Any sale deed executed by an under-raiyat, in violation of Section 108, is invalid.
  • ✓ Subsequent purchasers cannot claim rights based on a fraudulent sale deed.
  • ✓ The High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the trial court. The appeal was allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an under-raiyat cannot transfer their land rights due to the statutory bar under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act. This judgment reinforces the protection granted to under-raiyats under agrarian reform laws and clarifies that such protections cannot be bypassed through fraudulent means. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent finding of the trial court and first appellate court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aftaruddin vs. Ramkrishna Datta reaffirms the legal restrictions on land transfers by under-raiyats. The judgment emphasizes the importance of agrarian reform laws and protects the rights of vulnerable tenants. It also clarifies that High Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact without a substantial question of law. The court held that the sale deed was invalid and the plaintiffs could not claim any rights based on it.

FAQ

Q: What is an under-raiyat?
A: An under-raiyat is a person who cultivates land under an agreement with a raiyat (landowner), paying rent in cash, kind, or a share of the produce. They are similar to tenants.
Q: Can an under-raiyat sell their land in Tripura?
A: No, Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, prohibits an under-raiyat from transferring their land rights.
Q: What happens if an under-raiyat sells their land despite the legal restriction?
A: Any such sale is invalid, and the purchaser cannot claim any rights based on that sale.
Q: What is the purpose of Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960?
A: The purpose of Section 108 is to protect under-raiyats from eviction and forced or fraudulent transfers of their land rights.
Q: What is the significance of this Supreme Court judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the statutory protection given to under-raiyats under agrarian reform laws and clarifies that these protections cannot be bypassed through fraudulent means.

Source: Aftaruddin vs. Ramkrishna Datta