Nathu Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeals Nos. 3152-53 of 1997, decided on February 18, 2003

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

----------------

Judges

Justice K.G. Balakrishnan

Acts

Section 175 of the Act
Section 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act
Clause (b) of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
Sub-section 4(A) of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act
Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram, members of the Scheduled Caste, executed two transfer deeds dated 2-4-1964 and 4-5-1964 in favour of transferees who did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 declares such transfers void. Acting on this provision, the Tahsildar dispossessed the transferees and restored possession to Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram on 17-1-1976.

Subsequently, on 22-11-1976, an application—evidently under Section 175(4-A) of the Act—was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO dismissed the application as time-barred, finding that it had been filed more than twelve years after the 1964 transfers, the limitation period then prescribed by Section 214 read with Entry 66 of the Third Schedule.

The respondents challenged only the direction regarding possession before the appellate authority, and later in revision and appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board upheld the SDO, holding the proceedings barred by limitation and ordering possession to revert to the transferees. A writ petition by the appellants failed in the High Court, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the twelve-year limitation period under Section 214 and Entry 66 of the Third Schedule bars proceedings initiated under Section 175(4-A) to declare the 1964 transfers void under Section 42(b).
Whether a transfer declared “void” by Section 42(b) can be challenged at any time, rendering the statutory limitation inapplicable.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Section 42(b) renders the 1964 transfer deeds void ab initio; therefore, no limitation period applies to proceedings seeking restoration of possession.
Consequently, the authorities should have held that the appellants are entitled to regain possession despite the lapse of time.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that although Section 42(b) declares such transfers void, the Act prescribes a specific procedural route—Section 175(4-A)—for seeking ejectment and resumption. Section 214 mandates that applications under Section 175 must respect the limitation periods in the Third Schedule. At the relevant time, Entry 66 fixed a twelve-year limitation, later extended to thirty years only with effect from 5-10-1981. Because the transfers occurred in April–May 1964, any application should have been filed by 1976 at the latest. The appellants’ application, filed on 22-11-1976, fell outside this period.

The Court rejected the contention that a “void” assignment nullifies limitation statutes. It held that only through properly instituted proceedings under Section 175(4-A) can the competent authority declare a transfer void and order resumption. Since the statutory time-bar had elapsed, the SDO’s dismissal and the subsequent affirmances by the Board of Revenue and High Court were correct.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are dismissed.

The immediate effect is that possession remains with the transferees, and the appellants obtain no relief. The judgment reiterates that even transactions statutorily declared void must be challenged within the limitation period expressly provided by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. No new precedent was set beyond this affirmation of statutory limitation.

Show full summary ...

Nathu Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Others

Order

1. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were in possession of certain lands. By two documents, one dated 2-4-1964 and another dated 4-5-1964, they transferred these lands to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The original landholders Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were the members of the Scheduled Caste. The transferee under the two documents dated 2-4-1964 and 4-5-1964 were not the members of either the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Clause (b) of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) says that a sale, gift or bequest by a member of a Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be void.

2. Based on this provision, the Tahsildar initiated action against the transferees under these two documents and it appears that the Revenue Inspector was instructed to take action and the transferees were dispossessed and on 17-1-1976, Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were put in possession. Thereafter, an application had been filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22-11-1976 evidently under sub-section 4(A) of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that the application filed on 22-11-1976 was beyond the period of limitation as it was made after a period of 12 years from the date of the execution of the two documents by Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram. The SDO noticed the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Receiver had taken possession of the land from Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram, so the Receiver was directed to handover the possession. This part of the order was challenged by the respondents before the Appellate Authority. The respondents thereafter filed a revision and an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue confirmed the order passed by the SDO and held that the action taken under Section 175 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation and the possession was directed to be given to the transferee. The appeal and revision were, thus, allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the writ petition before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the same. Hence these appeals by way of special leave.

3. We have heard the appellant's counsel and the counsel for the respondents.

4. The contention urged by the appellant's counsel is that by virtue of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any transaction made in contravention has been declared to be void and, therefore, the period of limitation is not applicable and that the authority should have held that the appellants are entitled to get possession. It may be noticed that for taking an action under Section 175 of the Act, the procedure as prescribed under sub-section 4(A) of Section 175 has to be adopted. It is also to be noticed that under Section 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, period of limitation is prescribed for initiating action under Section 175. Under Section 214, it is stated that:

“214. (1) The suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be instituted and made within the time prescribed therein for them and every such suit instituted or application made after the expiry of the period of limitation so prescribed shall be dismissed:”

Under the Third Schedule, in clause 66, for an application for ejectment for illegal transfer or sub-letting, the period of twelve years is originally prescribed for filing such an application from the date of transfer or sub-lease. The provision relating to the period of limitation was later on amended with effect from 5-10-1981 and the period was prescribed as 30 years. So far as the present transaction is concerned, the period of limitation applicable is twelve years. The transfers being one on 2-4-1964 and another on 4-5-1964, the proper application should have been filed within twelve years, but it was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer only on 22-11-1976. In that view of the matter, the proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, it was barred by limitation and the finding of the SDO is correct which has been rightly confirmed by the authorities right up to the High Court.

5. The contention of the appellant's counsel that the assignments were by itself void, therefore, the period of limitation has no application, cannot be accepted for the reason that the specified procedure is prescribed under clause 4(A) of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. If only such proceeding is initiated, the authorities are entitled to declare that such transfer executed is void and property be resumed. Therefore, we do not find much force in the contention of the learned counsel. The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed.

Nathu Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Nathu Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Others

Comments