High Court Judgment Overturned: Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Under-Raiyat Land Transfers

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Aftaruddin (Dead) Rep. Thr. Lrs. vs. Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta & Ors., delivered a judgment that reaffirms the legal restrictions on the transfer of agricultural land by under-raiyats (tenants). The Court set aside a High Court ruling that had incorrectly interpreted Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (TLR&LR Act) and reinstated the trial court’s decision, upholding the statutory prohibition on such transfers.

This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of agrarian reform laws designed to protect tenant farmers from being unlawfully compelled to transfer their land rights and prevents fraudulent circumvention of these legal protections.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose over ownership and possession of a piece of agricultural land in Tripura. The original plaintiffs, Ramkrishna Datta, Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh, and Lalit Mohan Ghosh, filed a suit in the trial court seeking:

A declaration of their title over the suit land.
A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Aftaruddin, from interfering with their possession.

The case primarily revolved around the legality of a sale deed dated 11.01.1971, through which the defendant, Aftaruddin, purportedly transferred the suit land to Mamataj Begam, the daughter of the original raiyat (landowner) Sayed Jama Kazi. The plaintiffs later acquired the land from Mamataj Begam and her father on 27.11.1971. However, the revenue records still reflected that the defendant, Aftaruddin, was in possession of the suit land.

Key Legal Issues

The case involved two major legal questions:

Was the sale deed executed by Aftaruddin valid, given that he was an under-raiyat?
Did the plaintiffs acquire a valid title over the land through subsequent purchases?

Arguments by the Defendant (Aftaruddin)

Aftaruddin, the original defendant, contended that:

The sale deed was legally void as Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act prohibits under-raiyats from transferring land.
Even if the sale deed was executed, it was a fraudulent transaction designed to bypass legal restrictions.
He remained in possession of the land, as evidenced by revenue records.
The plaintiffs had no legal title to seek an injunction against him.

Arguments by the Plaintiffs (Ramkrishna Datta & Others)

The plaintiffs countered that:

The sale deed was valid because Aftaruddin had described himself as a raiyat (landowner) in the document.
Since the land was subsequently transferred by the original raiyat, they had acquired valid ownership.
Under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, they were entitled to claim ownership as bona fide purchasers.
Even if there was an initial defect in the title, it was cured when the government later conferred raiyat status on Aftaruddin in 1987.

Trial Court and First Appellate Court Findings

Both the trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of Aftaruddin, holding that:

Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act clearly prohibits under-raiyats from transferring land.
The sale deed executed by Aftaruddin was legally invalid.
The plaintiffs could not claim ownership based on an illegal transaction.
Merely being reflected in the revenue records does not confer ownership rights to the plaintiffs.

High Court’s Reversal and Supreme Court’s Intervention

The High Court overturned the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that:

Since Aftaruddin represented himself as a raiyat in the sale deed, the restrictions of Section 108 did not apply.
The plaintiffs were protected under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act since they had purchased the land believing the title to be valid.

This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning settled factual findings without a substantial question of law.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, made the following key observations:

“A bare reading of the aforesaid provision [Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act] makes it absolutely clear that an under-raiyat is prohibited from transferring his interest as under-raiyat in any land though this interest is a heritable interest.”

The Court further held that:

The transaction was an attempt to fraudulently bypass legal restrictions on land transfers.
Revenue records reflecting possession do not establish legal ownership.
The plaintiffs could not take advantage of a fraudulent sale to claim ownership.
The High Court had improperly reversed concurrent factual findings without a substantial legal basis.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the High Court’s judgment.
Restored the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit.
Held that under-raiyats cannot legally transfer their land under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act.
Ruled that the plaintiffs had no valid title and could not seek an injunction against the defendant.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching implications for property law and land reforms:

Reaffirms the statutory protection of tenant farmers from forced or fraudulent land transfers.
Ensures that agrarian reform laws are not bypassed through misrepresentation in sale deeds.
Limits the ability of courts to overturn concurrent factual findings without a strong legal basis.
Strengthens the principle that fraudulent transactions do not create legal rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as an important precedent in protecting the rights of under-raiyats and maintaining the integrity of land reform legislation.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Aftaruddin (Dead) Re vs Ramkrishna Datta ali Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category