Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
A member of the Scheduled Tribe can invoke the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to restore his land which is transferred in contravention of the Act or by fraudulent method. [Ram Chandra Sahu v. Commissioner, 1991 (1) P L J R 16 (F B) : 1990 (2) B L J R 929]. Section 20(5) – The provision of Scheduled Are Regulation is beneficial in nature and legislative intension is to extend protection to class of citizen who are not imposition to keep their property themselves in absence of protection, the Court has to give liberal construction to the protective mechanism which would work out the protection and enable the spare of protection to be effective than limit the scope. [Pandey oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu, A I R 1992 S C 195]. Sections 20(1), 20(2) and Section 20(5) as amended by Scheduled Are Regulation, 1969 and Section 42- Whether the provisions arfe ultra vires of Articles 13, 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. It is held that Section 42 of the Act is a legislation in respect of Entry 21, List 11- State list of several schedule of the Constitution and not violative of being repugnant the provisions of Limitation Act. A central legislation delaling with acquisition of right by adverse possession Section 20 (5) of the? Act is a valid piece of legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitutional provision. [Bhauri Lal Jain v. Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara, 1972 P L J R 415 : A I R 1973 Pat 1: 1972 B L J R 897 : I L R ( 1972) 51 Pat 533 (F B)]. Section 20- Bar to transfer raiyats rights- The suit, for the relief sought for is not maintainable in view of the bar created under Section 20 of the Act provided, of course the conditions, in terms of provisions of the Act and fulfilled. As the issue regarding maintainability of the suit has not been framed and, as such, the Court below had no occasion to deal with the question in hand. [Mithu Tanti v.Raghunath Prasad Tanti, 1996 (1) PL J R 132 (Pat)]. Section 20- Bar under- Statutory- Transfer of land within the municipal area where no record of rights have been prepared- Requirement of an inquiry as to whether the land is transferable or not-Demand of verification report of the Circle Officer in a prescribed format before the Registrar for the registration of deeds- Demand is for the purpose of giving effect to the statutory bar created under the provisions of the Act-No reason to interfere with such requirement/demand. [Shyam Sunder Barnwal v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2004 (3) Sections 20, 3 and 59- Conversion of Water channels and water reservoirs-Water channels and water reservoirs for irrigation cannot be Converted to other purposes. Revenue authorities having no jurisdiction to decide title of the land land under Section 35. If such conversion is attempted the affected railways or the State may initiate appropriate legal proceedings. Respondent No. 2 evidently had no jurisdiction to decide a complicated question of title while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 35 of the said Act. The respondents have contended that no sale of a tenk can be made by a raiyat. If the tank is converted for the use of any other purpose or brought under cultivation, it would be open to the affected raiyats or the State to imitate an appropriate legal action against the petitioner. It is further made clear that the disputed question of title of the petitioners in respect of the aforementioned tank may be decided in an appropriate proceeding. [Ansar Ali v. State of Bihar, 1996, (2) P L J R 656 : (1) B L J 751 (Pat)]. Section 20(5)- The word “transfer” Meaning thereof- Held, the act of forcible dispassion of a raiyat belonging to Schedule Tribe by another person is not a transfer in violation of provisions of the Act-In such cases provision of Scheduled Area Regulation is not applicable- 1987 BL T ( Rep) 177 and 1988 BLT (Rep) 15 followed, Jalpa Tudu’s Case 1981 B B C J 296.- Under Section 71-A of the C N T Act the conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under the said Act is transfer of land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Triber kin Contravention to the provisions of Section 46 or any other provisions of Act or by any fraudulent method. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner may direct for restoration of the land in question only in the event if it is held that transfer has taken place in violation of the provision of the said Act or by any fraudulent method. When, if a wider meaning is assigned to the word ‘transfer’ forcibly dispossession of raiyat by another person cannot be any stretch of imagination be held to be a transfer. Further, from a bare perusal of Section 71-A of the Act, it will be evident that transfer connotes an act on the part of the raiyat belonging to the member of the Scheduled Tribe himself in favour of another person. Therefore, an act of forcible dispossession of raiyat belonging to Scheduled Tribe by another person, being not a transfer in violation of the said Act, the provision of Section 71-A thereof cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. The observation of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) is overruled by Supreme Court in the Case of Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu reported in A I R 1992 S C 195, Supreme Court, now has defined the word “Transfer’ “ in the following manner- “In the absence of definition of transfer and considering the situation in which exercise of jurisdiction contemplated, it would not be proper to confine the meaning of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or a situation where transfer has a statutory definition. What exactly is contemplated, in the provision is where possession has passed from one to another and as a physical fact the member of the Scheduled Tribe who is entitled to hold possession and a non-member has come into possession would be covered by transfer and a situation of that type would amenable to exercise of jurisdiction within the ambit of Section 71-A of the CNT Act. [Ram Chandra Salhu v. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi, 1990(2) BLJR 929:1991(1) PLJR 17(FB)]. Section 20(5) (As amended by Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969) – Forcible Dispossession from the land is not transfer—It is not the case of transfer by fraudulent means-Held-Section 20(5) of the Act does not attract. The observation of the Patna Hight Court is overruled by Supreme Court in the Case of Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu, repoted in AIR 1992 SC 195. [ Jalpa tandu v. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, 1981 BLJR 473:1981 BBC] 296:1981 BLJ 499]