Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court in a case revolving around specific performance in tribal land transfer agreements. The court’s interpretation of Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code is central to understanding the complexities surrounding the grant of specific performance in such circumstances. The case sheds light on the importance of complying with relevant laws and seeking necessary permissions before final conveyance through a sale deed.
Facts
- The defendant failed to perform his part of the contract to execute the sale deed.
- The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit no.11 of 2005 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell.
- The plaintiff also sought refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- along with 6% interest p.a.
- The trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff granting specific performance of the agreement to sell.
- The trial Court also directed the plaintiff to hand over possession to the defendant.
- The plaintiff, aggrieved by the decision, filed a second appeal (S.A. No.118/2018) before the High Court.
- Trial court denied decree for specific performance and granted refund of Rs.2,20,000/- with 6% interest.
- Plaintiff appealed the decision, seeking specific performance.
- First Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s decision but increased interest to 14% from decree date.
- First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for specific performance, stating it could not be granted.
Also Read: Analysis of Tax Exemption for Enemy Properties
Issue
- High Court raised the substantial question of law regarding the grant of decree for specific performance of land to be transferred from tribal to non-tribal
- The question revolved around the requirement of obtaining permission under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- The interpretation of Section 36A was crucial in determining whether specific performance can be granted in such cases
Arguments
- The High Court was not justified in holding that the defendant had no right to enter into an agreement to sell, and the plaintiff had no right to seek specific performance.
- The interpretation of Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code by the High Court was deemed incorrect as it did not entirely prohibit the transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal.
- The requirement for obtaining state government sanction had not arisen since the defendant had not executed the sale deed.
- The trial Court and the first appellate Court erred in granting only the alternative relief.
- Even after a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff still needed permission under Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code to execute it.
- The plaintiff had fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for specific performance by tendering a significant portion of the consideration, while the defendant had not fulfilled their part of the contract.
- The invocation of Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code by the High Court was deemed improper in the context of seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell.
- The plaintiff had the right to seek the sanction of the State Government after obtaining a decree for specific performance, and the decree could only be executed if such sanction was granted.
- Respondent argues that the sale agreement violated Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code.
- In the instant case, possession was handed over pursuant to the agreement.
- Respondent sees no merit in the appeal and requests its dismissal.
- Section 36A includes ‘or otherwise’ apart from sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease.
- Respondent seeks specific performance of the agreement through this appeal.
Also Read: SC Clarifies: Choice of Depreciation Method Allowed Until Return Filing
Analysis
- Section STA of the judgment states that a tribal can alienate land to a non-tribal only after obtaining previous sanction.
- Any alienation by a tribal to a non-tribal through sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease, or other means requires an application and approval.
- The non-tribal must seek permission before acquiring land from a tribal.
- The purpose of this section is to regulate the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals in a controlled manner.
- The judgment analyzed the provisions of Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code in relation to restrictions on transfers of occupancies by Tribals.
- It highlighted the requirement of obtaining prior sanction from the State Government for transfers of occupancy from a Tribal to a non-Tribal.
- The analysis emphasized that the transaction in question was deemed void due to the lack of prior sanction, preventing the grant of specific performance.
- It noted that the defendant’s failure to execute the sale deed hindered the completion of the transaction, necessitating compliance with Section 36A by the non-Tribal party.
- The courts were expected to grant a decree for specific performance to the plaintiff, given their fulfillment of contractual obligations and readiness to perform the remaining terms.
- The High Court’s focus on Section 36A as grounds for denying relief to the plaintiff was critiqued, with the judgment underscoring the importance of complying with relevant laws before final conveyance through a sale deed.
- In the case of Nathulal v. Fulchand 1969(3) SCC 120, it was held that when an agreement to sale is executed but specific performance is not possible without permission or sanction from a competent authority, the suit can be decreed.
- Decree for specific performance can be granted subject to obtaining such permission/sanction from the competent authority as required.
- The case specifically dealt with the requirement of permission from the State government under Section 70(4) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 for the sale of agricultural land by a purchaser who is not an agriculturist.
- The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Court as the denial of permission by the State authorities was in line with the constitutional scheme.
- The High Court’s inquiry was different from the current case as the previous sanction under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was not yet sought.
- The High Court erred in relying on Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, 1995 (Supp.) 2 SCC 549, as the circumstances of the appellant in that case, a non-tribal purchaser, were different – they were denied permission for alienation and their writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Decision
- The appellant-plaintiff shall proceed under Section 36A before seeking conveyance of the subject land if the defendant is a tribal.
- The appeal is allowed with specific performance granted to the appellant-plaintiff.
- The judgment of the High Court, First Appellate Court, and trial Court is modified.
- The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.07.2001.
Case Title: BABASAHEB Vs. RADHU VITHOBA BARDE (2024 INSC 122)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002458-002458 / 2024
