Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the acquisition of land originally belonging to late Satyananda Negi, a common ancestor of the parties, who were members of a Scheduled Tribe. The land was recorded in his name and after his death, it devolved upon his two sons, Chakradhar and Gajadhar, with right of survivorship. Chakradhar died in 1948, before the Constitution and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, leaving behind four sons and a daughter (the appellant). The land was acquired for an Ultra Mega Power Project, and compensation of Rs.5,97,35,754 was paid to the four sons and the daughters of Gajadhar. The appellant claimed a 1/5th share as a daughter of Chakradhar. A reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the Reference Court, which rejected her claim on the ground that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2). The High Court confirmed this. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application. The Court noted that while equity may favor the appellant, law must prevail, and it is for the legislature to amend the Act. The Court distinguished the decision in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, stating that it did not mandate the application of the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes. The Court also rejected the argument based on Article 21, as the appellant had not shown that she was dependent on the land for livelihood. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Applicability to Scheduled Tribes - Section 2(2) - The appellant, a Scheduled Tribe woman, claimed a share in compensation for land acquired from a coparcenary. The Court held that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim any right of survivorship under the Act. The Court cannot amend the law; it is for the legislature to amend Section 2(2) to extend benefits to Scheduled Tribe women. (Paras 6-6.1) B) Equity vs. Law - Primacy of Law - The Court held that when there is a conflict between law and equity, law must prevail. Equity can only supplement the law, not supplant it. Reliance was placed on B. Premananda v. Mohan Koikal, (2011) 4 SCC 266. (Para 6) C) Precedent - Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125 - Distinguished - In Madhu Kishwar, the Court did not strike down the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act but carved out an intervening right for female dependents. However, that case did not mandate the application of the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes. The Court in the present case refused to extend the ratio to override Section 2(2). (Paras 6.2-6.4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a daughter belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, is entitled to a share in the compensation for acquired land on the basis of survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2). The Court cannot amend the law; it is for the legislature to amend Section 2(2). The decision in Madhu Kishwar was distinguished. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 2(2) excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application
- Law prevails over equity
- Court cannot amend law
- Madhu Kishwar case distinguished
