In a significant judgment, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that individuals who are not members of the Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) cannot acquire khatedari (tenancy) rights through adverse possession over land belonging to SC/ST members, especially when such land has been transferred in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Background of the Case
The petitioners had purchased land in 1965 from the respondent's father, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioners, which was dismissed in 1978. Following this, the petitioners sought a declaration of khatedari rights over the land. However, their suit was dismissed in 1997 on the grounds that the 1965 sale contravened Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This decision was upheld by both the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. A review petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, prompting them to approach the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved
Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, explicitly states that any sale, gift, or bequest of khatedari tenant rights by an SC/ST member to a person not belonging to these communities is void. This provision aims to protect the landholding rights of marginalized communities and prevent the alienation of their lands to non-SC/ST individuals.
Petitioners' Argument
The petitioners contended that their continuous possession of the land since 1965 had matured into adverse possession, thereby entitling them to khatedari rights. They argued that the dismissal of the respondent's ejectment application in 1978 should be considered conclusive, invoking the principle of res judicata to bar any further claims against their possession.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
Justice Avneesh Jhingan, presiding over the case, referred to the Division Bench's decision in Sita Ram vs. Board of Revenue [2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2502], which held that individuals purchasing land in contravention of Section 42 of the Act cannot acquire khatedari rights through adverse possession. The court emphasized that allowing such claims would defeat the protective intent of Section 42, which is designed to safeguard the land rights of SC/ST communities.
The court further noted that adverse possession claims require the possession to be hostile, actual, open, and continuous for the statutory period. However, in cases where the initial possession is based on a transaction declared void by law (as in the sale contravening Section 42), the nature of possession cannot be considered legally adverse.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim, reiterating that non-SC/ST individuals cannot claim khatedari rights over land belonging to SC/ST members through adverse possession, especially when the initial transfer violates statutory provisions designed to protect marginalized communities. This judgment reinforces the legislative intent to prevent the alienation of SC/ST lands and upholds the protective measures enshrined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.