SC bars exchange of Scheduled Tribe land to non-STs; “exchange” counts as transfer and needs prior permission under U.P. ZA&LR Act
Case name: Additional Commissioner (Revenue) & Ors. v. Akhalaq Hussain & Anr.
Date of Order: 03 March 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 256; Civil Appeal No. 7346 of 2010
Bench: Justice R. Banumathi; Justice S. Abdul Nazeer; Justice A.S. Bopanna (Division Bench of three)
Held: Transfers of land by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a non-ST are absolutely barred under Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950; the phrase “or otherwise” covers exchange as well. Even assuming Section 161 applies, prior permission of the Assistant Collector is mandatory and an exchange breaching the 10% rental-value cap must be refused. Mere registration/mutation or approvals for a hotel do not validate an illegal exchange. In the absence of a Section 143 declaration, the land remains agricultural, so the U.P. ZA&LR Act governs. The limitation entry in Appendix-III (for ejectment of sirdar/asami) does not restrict vesting for void transfers under Sections 166–167.
Summary: Respondents (non-ST) executed a registered exchange deed (16.03.1994) with an ST landholder (Mangal Singh): they gave 4½ muthi (~56.25 m²) and received 12 nali (~2,400 m²). Mutation of respondents’ names on the 12 nali followed; no corresponding mutation in the ST’s name for the 4½ muthi. A hotel (“Zara Resort”) was later built on the exchanged land.
The Assistant Collector (19.07.2000) held the exchange void under Sections 157-B & 161, ordered vesting under Section 167 and removal of structures. Appeals/revision were dismissed (30.06.2001; 02.07.2002). The High Court (18.09.2008) set aside the orders, holding that Sections 161/157-B don’t apply to an exchange evidenced by a registered deed with stamp duty paid.
Section 157-B imposes a complete bar: ST land cannot be transferred to non-ST “by sale, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise”; exchange falls within “otherwise.” Even on Section 161, prior permission is a pre-condition, and the 10% rental-value threshold would have led to refusal given the stark disparity (56.25 m² vs 2,400 m²). Without a Section 143 declaration, the land is agricultural (Section 3(14)), so Chapter VIII controls (relying also on Chandrika Singh). Self-serving deed recitals or later municipal/loan approvals don’t convert it to abadi land. Appendix-III Item 20 concerns ejectment suits, not the consequence of void transfers. Applying a six-year limit would defeat the Act’s protective scheme; thus, vesting under Section 167 is not time-barred. The U.P. ZA&LR Act is beneficial legislation to protect vulnerable agrarian communities (citing Samatha for tribal land protection ethos); equity based on investments/loans cannot override statutory bars.
Decision: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s judgment is set aside. The exchange is void; consequences under Sections 166–167 follow, and the State is free to proceed in accordance with law (including vesting and recovery of possession).