The Additional Commissioner Revenue and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another
Background
The respondents executed a registered "exchange deed" in 1994 swapping a small plot of their land for a much larger plot belonging to Mangal Singh, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, and built a hotel on the land they received. Revenue authorities found the exchange invalid because no prior permission was obtained and because the law bars transfer of Scheduled Tribe land to non-tribal persons, and ordered the land to vest in the State. The High Court, however, set aside that order, holding the statutory restrictions did not apply to an exchange carried out by a registered deed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act imposes a complete bar on transfer of Scheduled Tribe land "by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease or otherwise" to a non-tribal person, and the word "otherwise" covers an exchange as well. The Court also found that the exchange lacked the Assistant Collector's mandatory prior permission required under Section 161, and that the wide disparity between the land values (and the fact the lands were never actually mutated as claimed) cast serious doubt on the exchange's genuineness. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed, restoring the vesting of the land in the State.
Lesson Learnt
Legal protections against transfer of tribal land are interpreted broadly and cannot be defeated merely by structuring a transaction as an "exchange" backed by a registered document: the substance of the transaction, not its form, controls.