Whether a tribal can sale his land to tribal without permission of collector?

 While the previous approval of the State Government is not

contemplated if the transfer is between tribal and tribal or if the

transfer is between tribal and non-tribal and is by lease, or mortgage for period not exceeding five years, the previous sanction of the Collector is a must.

In the teeth of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Code, which

do not make any distinction based on the status of the purchaser or transferee, it is not possible to accept the submission that if the transfer is between tribal and tribal, the previous sanction of the Collector shall not be necessary. Such submission militates against the plain language of the statutory provisions and if accepted will be destructive of the legislative intent which is to protect the tribals from exploitation.

The fact that the transferee is also a tribal does not necessarily

eliminate the possibility that the transferer tribal may be exploited or may be at the receiving end of the bargain. The Legislature has in its wisdom not exempted tribal to tribal transfer from the requirement of previous sanction from the Collector. Presumably, the Legislature was conscious of the fact that a tribal is vulnerable and could possibly be exploited or induced to part with the agricultural land even by a fellow tribal who is in a more dominating position in life. It is precisely to prevent such exploitation that the previous sanction of the Collector is statutorily mandated. {para 14}

15. I see no error in the view taken concurrently by the Tahsildar and the Additional Collector. The view is consistent with the legislative mandate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1556 OF 2022

Vijay Anandrao Moghe  Vs  The Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, 

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 11 th APRIL, 20 22

Print Page

Whether non disclosure of sale of property prior to institution of eviction suit amounts to suppression of material facts by landlord

 So far as the question of sale of property by the landlord on 03.07.2001 is concerned, it was before institution of proceedings for eviction. On the date of institution of proceedings, this accommodation which was already sold and the same was not available with the landlord. The requirement of Section 16(1)(g) r/w Section 16(2), is in respect of the disclosure of the premises/area in occupation/use of the landlord, on the date of institution of the proceedings. Hence, non-disclosure of such sale on 03.07.2001, by the landlord in his application, in my opinion, does not amount to suppression of any material facts. Apart from this, there is no pleading by tenant in written statement in respect of such sale. It is for the tenant to specifically plead such fact and bring on record the evidence to establish the animus possidendi or oblique motive, on the part of the landlord. Even the sale was prior to institution of proceedings, the tenant had a full opportunity to raise appropriate plea in respect thereof and to avail full opportunity, to place evidence on record. The tenant has, in the instant case, failed to plead this fact and has further failed to avail an opportunity provided to him by the Trial Court. The enquiry in to such questions involve resolution of disputed questions of facts. If this plea had been raised by the tenants, the landlord would have got sufficient opportunity to defend it. Hence, such a plea can not, for the first time, be entertained by this Court, in revisional jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 244 of 2007

Decided On: 14.12.2009

 Bismilla Bee  Vs. Anwar

Print Page