MURLIDHAR DAYANDEO KESEKAR versus VISHWANATH PANDU BARDE AND ANR.

MURLIDHAR DAYANDEO KESEKAR versus VISHWANATH PANDU BARDE AND ANR.

Permission for sale of assigned land to tribal cannot be granted if it violates statutory and constitutional provisions. Agreements for such sale are void as opposed to public policy. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable as possession is unlawful. No entitlement to compensation for improvements exists. The constitutional mandate prohibits alienation for protection and empowerment of weaker sections.

Parties
Appellant: Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar; Respondent: Vishwanath Pandu Barde; Respondent: State Government
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Writ Petition by Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Scheduled Tribe Land Protection, Alienation of Assigned Lands, Public Policy, Economic Empowerment, Directive Principles
Constitutional Law Land Law Social Justice Scheduled Tribe Land Protection Alienation of Assigned Lands Public Policy Economic Empowerment Directive Principles

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar

Appellant

Vishwanath Pandu Barde

Respondent

State Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Writ Petition by Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assigned tribal land can be alienated or converted to non-agricultural use.
  2. 2 Whether agreement for sale of tribal land is void as opposed to public policy.
  3. 3 Applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to possession under void agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for sale of assigned land to tribal cannot be granted if it violates statutory and constitutional provisions. Agreements for such sale are void as opposed to public policy. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable as possession is unlawful. No entitlement to compensation for improvements exists. The constitutional mandate prohibits alienation for protection and empowerment of weaker sections.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Collector is directed to resume the lands immediately and assign to legal representatives of first respondent if eligible or to any other eligible tribal.
  • No costs awarded.