On 9th December 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession. To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. (Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
The dispute is regarding the apportionment of amount of compensation with respect to the land acquired. The land originally stood recorded in the name of late Satyananda Negi a common ancestor of the appellant and the other coparceners. The said Satyananada died leaving behind his two sons namely Chakradhar and Gajadhar. Chakradhar died leaving behind his four sons namely Chintamani, Parakhita, Basudev and Kulamani and one daughter Kamla.
Similarly, Gajadhar died leaving behind his two daughters namely Kumari and Kumudini. With respect to the land acquired, Khasra No.81, Mouza Kopsingha which originally stood recorded in the name of late Satyananda Negi, the amount of compensation was settled at Rs.5,97,35,754/- in favour of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 herein i.e., Kadamba Negi, Janhabi Negi, Basudev Negi, Lalita Negi and daughters of Gajadhar i.e., Kumari Dhrua and Kumudini Majhi. At the instance of the appellant claiming to be the daughter of Chakradhar and claiming 1/5th share in the amount of compensation a reference was made to the Reference Court u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh rejected the claim of the appellant in the compensation, mainly on the ground that as the parties belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act shall not be applicable and therefore the appellant being a daughter shall not be entitled to the share in the amount of compensation. The order passed by the learned Reference Court denying the share in the amount of compensation has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that “as observed and held by this Court denial of right to succession to Scheduled Tribe women would amount to deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An exclusive succession in the male line of heirs must remain in suspended animation till the immediate female relatives of the last male tenant continue to depend their livelihood on the land. To deny the equal right to the women/daughter belonging to Scheduled Tribe would be gender-based discrimination and the daughter cannot be denied the right in the joint family property in which all coparceners have the equal share.” The case of Madhu Kishwar & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors. was relied upon.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act more particularly Section 2(2), the High Court has not committed any error. The appellant is not entitled to receive any share in the suit property by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Her father Chakradhar passed away in 1948 before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act and even before the Constitution of India.
The Hindu Succession Act, will not be applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe, without any explicit clause in the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act cannot be given a retrospective operation to provide compensation to the appellant. In the case of Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors., it is clearly held that if the members of the Scheduled Tribe follow customary and practices of Hinduism, then and then only the Hindu Succession Act would be applicable. There is no evidence on record to prove that the parties have Hinduised. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions whenever there is a conflict between the law and equity, the law would prevail.”
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “as per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, as such as rightly observed by the High Court the appellant cannot claim any right of survival under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, so long as Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act stands and there is no amendment, the parties shall be governed by the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Therefore, though on equity we may be with the appellant being daughter and more than approximately 70 years have passed after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act and much water has flown thereafter and though we are prima facie of the opinion that not to grant the benefit of survivorship to the daughter in the property of the father can be said to be bad in law and cannot be justified in the present scenario, unless Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act is amended, the parties being member of the Scheduled Tribe are governed by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. When there is a conflict between the law and equity, the law would prevail. Equity can only supplement the law. There is a gap in it but it cannot supplant the law.”
The present appeal was dismissed holding that the appellant is not entitled to any right of survivorship under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The central government was directed to examine the question to consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions provided under the Hindu succession act.
Case: Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6901 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
Date: December 09, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
