CASE TITLE:
Kamla Neti Devi Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
9 December 2022
JUDGE(S):
JusticeM.R. Shah
Justice Krishna Murari
SUBJECT
The Apex Court in its recent judgement pressed upon the need for amendment in the Hindu Succession Act so as to make it applicable to members belonging to Scheduled Tribes as well. The learned bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, while rejecting the claim of a female belonging to Scheduled Tribe for a share in the compensation amount on account of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, reiterated the well established principle of law that ‘when there is conflict between equity and law, the law would prevail.However, the Court went on to observe that there seems no justice in depriving a Tribal female an equal share in the property of her father when daughters belonging to non-tribal are so entitled in view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The Court further called for an amendment to section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.
“We hope and trust that the Central Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The property which is the subject matter of the suit belonged to one Satyanand Negi. After his death, it devolved upon his two sons, Chakradhar and Gajadhar.
- Chkradhar had 4 sons and a daughter (appellant). Upon Chakradhar’s death, his property devolved upon his four sons, each getting 1/4th share by means of succession.
- After about 60 years, the said property was acquired by the Government for establishment of Power Project. The compensation for the same acquisition was paid to all the four holders(respondents) of the property.
- The appellant claimed 1/5th share in the amount of the compensation on the ground that she was the daughter of Chakradhar and as such was also a descendant of Satyanand Negi, the original owner of the property.
- An application for the same was filed before the Reference Court, which rejected the claims of the appellant. The order of the Reference Court was also upheld by the High Court.
- It is against this judgement that an appeal has been preferred before the Apex Court.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel appearing for the appellant, while placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Madhu Kishan & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1996) 5 SCC 125], submitted that the appellant being a daughter shall be entitled to her share in compensation amount in view of the provision of Hindu Succession Act.
- The counsel contended strongly that the denial of the right to succession to a woman belonging to scheduled tribe is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the parties to the present suit belong to a Scheduled Tribe. As such, the appellant is not entitled to receive any share in the compensation amount by virtue of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
- To support their contention, a reference was made of section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act that expressly carves member belonging to Scheduled Tribes out of the ambit of the Hindu Succession Act.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the appellant / petitioner being the daughter is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on survivorship basis under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Apex Court observed that at the outset, the facts of the case clearly indicate that the parties were members of a Scheduled Tribe and owing to section 2(2) of Hindu Succession Act, they can not be subjected to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. As such, it held that the Reference Court as well as the HighCourt was right in denying the claimed right.
- So long as no amendment is effected in section 2(2) of Hindu Succession Act, it can not be made applicable to Scheduled Tribes.
- The Court observed that though the contention of the appellant that she is entitled to share in the compensation can be accepted on equitable grounds but equity can only supplement the law. It can not supplant the law.
- The Court while placing reliance on B. Premananda Nad Ors. V. Mohan Koikal & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 266], noted that when there is any conflict between law and equity, law must always prevail.
- The Apex Court further observed that acceptance of the contention of the appellant would tantamount to amend the law and it is for the legislature to do so. Courts can not amend the laws.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above observations, the Court while directing the Central Government to take into consideration the issue of withdrawal of exemptions given under Hindu Succession Act in so far as the applicability of the provisions of the Act to Scheduled Tribes is concerned, dismissed the appeal.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
