Tribal Seller’s Daughter’s Challenge To 1966 Sale Entry Fails After 40 Years, As Gujarat HC Finds Section 73AA Inapplicable

The disputed land was sold by its tribal owner, Bhikha Kasam, to Hardas Vejanand by registered sale deed on 21 June 1966.

The petitioner later purchased the land from Hardas in 1991; the relevant mutation entries were recorded and certified.

In 2008, respondent No. 2, the original owner’s daughter, challenged the entry recording the 1966 transfer, alleging that the transfer from a tribal to a non-tribal was barred by Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

The Collector cancelled the entry, and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, dismissed the petitioner’s revision.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Section 73AA(4) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code renders a transfer of a tribal’s occupancy to a non-tribal invalid, absent the required prior sanction, where the transfer took place on or after commencement of the Gujarat Second Amendment Act, 1980

The Court treated this provision as inapplicable to a transfer completed in 1966, before the restriction came into force

The Court also held, in the circumstances, that the original owner’s daughter could not challenge the transfer in revenue proceedings without establishing her right and obtaining appropriate relief from a civil court

It further relied on the prolonged delay in challenging the entry as a ground for setting aside the orders

The Court found that the challenged entry recorded the 1966 sale from the tribal owner to Hardas, predating the commencement of Section 73AA; accordingly, the statutory restriction could not invalidate that transaction retrospectively

It also noted that respondent No. 2 had not established her right to challenge the transfer through civil proceedings or obtained a prohibitory order

Finally, the challenge was brought in 2008, decades after the 1966 transfer and after the 1991 purchase; the Court also noted that notice under Section 135-D had been served and public notice issued in 1991

These circumstances rendered the revenue authorities’ orders unsustainable.

The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs