Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 534 (GAU)

Kalimohan Sahaji v. State of Tripura

2012-04-30

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2007, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, in Civil rule No.574 of 1997. Learned Single Judge by the impugned common judgment disposed of four writ petitions, namely Civil Rule No.574 of 1997, Civil Rule No.577 of 1997, Civil Rule No.582 of 1997 and Civil Rule No.352 of 2006, since common question of law was involved in all those writ cases. The material facts, relevant for disposal of this writ appeal, may be summarized thus:- Lalit Mohan Sahaji, since deceased, father of the present appellants, filed Civil Rule No.574 of 1997 before this Court alleging, inter alia, that by dint of an unregistered deed, dated 04.06.1967, he purchased 3.02 acres of land from one Nama Charan Chakma, since deceased, father of private respondent No.4 on payment of consideration thereof and got possession of the land on the date of execution of the unregistered deed dated 04.06.1967. It was stipulated in the deed that Nama Charan Chakma shall execute registered deed of transfer after taking permission from the appropriate authority. After such purchase he constructed his house and was residing thereon with his family. In the year 1981, Nama Charan Chakma filed a petition before respondent No.2 under Section 187of The Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereafter mentioned as 'Act') for restoration of possession of the said land and that petition was registered as Restoration Case No.45 of 1981. On receipt of notice of the restoration case, Lalit Mohan Sahaji produced the unregistered deed dated 04.06.1967 before respondent No.2 and claimed that he was in possession of the land being transferred by Nama Charan Chakma, and that since it was a transfer effected before 01.01.1969, he was entitled to retain the possession. Respondent No.2, after hearing both sides by order dated 04.03.1982, allowed the petition and directed restoration of possession of the land to Nama Charan Chakma. Against that order Lalit Mohan Sahaji filed a revision petition before the revisional authority as per the Act and the revisional authority remanded the case to respondent No.2 for fresh hearing to find out whether the transfer was made prior to 01.01.1969 or not. Respondent No.2, thereafter by impugned order dated 13.02.1996 disposed the matter directing restoration of possession to respondent No.4. 2. Respondent No.2, thereafter by impugned order dated 13.02.1996 disposed the matter directing restoration of possession to respondent No.4. 2. Being aggrieved, Lalit Mohan Sahaji filed Civil Rule1997 before this Court challenging order dated13.02.1996 and that petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order dated01.08.2007. The appellants now challenged that order in this writ appeal. 3. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee for the appellants and learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A.S. Lodh for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as well as learned counsel, Mr. A. K. Deb for respondent No.4. 4. The main thrust of argument advanced by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty is that the unregistered deed was executed before 01.01.1969 and that document was placed before respondent No.2 for consideration, but respondent No.2, with an unfounded observation, directed restoration of possession of the land holding that the date of transfer mentioned in the said unregistered deed was not correct and that it was tempered. That observation of respondent No.2 was incorrect and not based on any evidence, and that the learned Single Judge in his judgment, though observed that the unregistered deed was executed on 04.06.1967, but dismissed the writ petition with an observation that since the transfer itself was not valid and without permission of the Collector, finding with regard to the actual execution of the deed was not necessary. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty further contends that since the transfer was not according to law as observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants cannot be ejected from the land under the provisions of Section 187of the Act and that they may only be evicted from their lawful possession only through a procedure prescribed by law. Learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. Lodh, on the contrary supporting the impugned judgment contends that the writ petition was rightly dismissed since the appellants and their predecessor entered into possession of the land not through the procedure prescribed by law, and therefore, the mischief of Section 187 of the Act shall apply and the appellants are liable to be evicted from the land. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb appearing for respondent No.4 also supported the impugned order dated 13.02.1996 passed by respondent No.2 and the judgment and order dated 01.08.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ case. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb appearing for respondent No.4 also supported the impugned order dated 13.02.1996 passed by respondent No.2 and the judgment and order dated 01.08.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ case. 5. To answer the points raised by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, it is necessary to have a survey of the relevant provisions of TLR & LR Act, 1960. The Parliament has enacted "The Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960", (Act No.43 of 1960). The Act has been notified in the Official Gazette on 14.11.1961 and came into force from that date. It may be mentioned here that the Act has found place in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India with subsequent amendments, and therefore, the Act is protected under Article 31-B of the Constitution. However, in the instant case, Article 31-B has no application because the appellants or their predecessor have not challenged the vires of the Act. It is only pointed out to show the importance of the Act. Section 187 of the Act provides special provision regarding Schedule Tribes. The principal Act has undergone many changes in the meantime by way of amendments. For proper appreciation and for ready reference, let us quote here Section 187 of the Act (as it stands after Second Amendment Act of 1974), which reads thus: 187. (1) No transfer of land by a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless- (a) the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes; or (b) where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of any such tribe, it is made with the previous permission of the Collector in writing in the manner prescribed; or (c) the transfer is by way of mortgage to a cooperative society or to a bank or to the Central or the State Government; Provided that the land transferred to a co-operative society or to a bank by way of mortgage in pursuance of clause (c) shall not be transferred by such society or bank to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without the permission of the Collector in writing. Explanation.-In this sub-section, the expression 'a bank' shall have the same meaning as in section 109. Explanation.-In this sub-section, the expression 'a bank' shall have the same meaning as in section 109. (2) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but subject to the provisions of section 187A, no transfer of land by a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be valid unless made by a registered instrument. (b) No instrument of transfer made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be registered or in any way recognised as valid in any court exercising civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. (3) (a) If a transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes is made on or after the first January, 1969 in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), any revenue officer, appointed specially for this purpose by the State government by notification in the Official gazette, may, of his own motion or on an application made in that behalf, and after giving the transferee an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing eject the transferee or any person claiming under him from such land or part thereof. (b) When the revenue officer has passed any order under clause (a) he shall restore the transferred land or part thereof to the transferer or his successor-in-interest; Provided that such order shall have effect from the first day of Baisakh next following the date of the order. (4) No decree or order shall be passed by any court for the sale of the land or any portion thereof, of a person belonging to a Scheduled tribe nor shall any such land be sold in execution of any decree or order. (4) No decree or order shall be passed by any court for the sale of the land or any portion thereof, of a person belonging to a Scheduled tribe nor shall any such land be sold in execution of any decree or order. (5) When a certificate is filed for recovery of an arrear of land revenue in respect of the land of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, the Certificate Official shall, before a proclamation for sale of the land is issued in execution of the certificate, refer the case to a revenue officer appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (3) who may sell the land to a member of the Scheduled Tribes, if available, and, if not available, to any other person at a fair market price to be fixed by such revenue officer, not being less than the amount due in respect of the Certificate: Provided that if the homestead of the defaulting person is comprised in the lands such homestead shall not be sold: Provided further that any amount remaining out of the sale proceeds after satisfaction of the amount due in respect of the certificate shall be paid to the defaulting person. 6. By the Sixth Amendment Act, 1994, further changes in respect of the special provisions regarding the Scheduled Tribes were made and it is necessary to put it here for ready reference and for proper appreciation. The provisions after the Sixth Amendment read thus: 2. For Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960(here-in-after referred to as principal Act), the following Section shall be substituted, namely:- 187. (1) No transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless- (a) the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes; or (b) where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of the Schedule Tribes, it is made with the previous permission of the Collector in writing in the manner to be prescribed by rule; or (c) the transfer is by way of mortgage to a Cooperative Society or to a Bank or to the Tripura Housing Board, or to the Central or the State Government or any other financial institutions or Corporations as may be notified by the Government in the Official Gazette from time to time for the purpose. Provided that the land so mortgaged in pursuance of Clause (c) shall not be transferred by such mortgage to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. Explanation.-In this sub-section, the expression, 'a bank' shall have the same meaning as in Section 109. (2) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but subject to the provision of Section 187A, no transfer of land belonging to a person is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless made by a registered instrument. (b) No transfer or instrument of transfer including a decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or Authority, made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be registered or in any way recognised as valid in any Court, Tribunal or Authority. (c) No decree or order shall be passed by any Court, Tribunal or Authority in any case other than the cases as specified in Clause(c) of subsection (1) for the sale of the land or any portion thereof, of a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes nor shall any such land be sold in execution of any decree or order." (3) In the Principal Act, after Section 187 A, the following sections shall be inserted, namely :- 187 B. (1) On or after the 1st January, 1969- (a) if a transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes is made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 187 to a person other than a member of the Scheduled Tribes, a Revenue Officer specially appointed for this purpose by a notification in the Official Gazette, and having local jurisdiction may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on its own motion or on an application made in that behalf, and after giving the transferee and the transferer an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing evict such or any person claiming under him from such land to the transferer, or his successor in interest and for this purpose the Revenue Officer may use or cause to be used such force as may be considered necessary. (b) if any land owned by person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is occupied by any person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without lawful authority, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner as provided in Clause (a) may restore the possession of such land to the person or successor in interest so dispossessed. (c) if a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is in occupation of Government land and eligible for allotment of such land under Section 14of this Act, parts with possession or is dispossessed therefrom by a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner as provided in Clause(a) may restore the possession of such land to that person or his successor-in-interest as the case may be and refer to the competent authority under Section 14 of this Act for allotment of the land to such person. Explanation-For the purpose of this sub-section, the successor-in-interest means heirs, transferee or assignee in accordance with law or custom as applicable. (2) If any person not being a member of the Scheduled Tribes occupies or possesses the land held by or in occupation of a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in any manner as specified in sub-section(1) after the commencement of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Sixth Amendment) Act, 1994 without any lawful authority he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also with a fine which may extend to three thousand rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 every offence punishable under sub- section (2) shall be cognizable and non- bailable and wherever any person is arrested and detained in custody in pursuance of provision of this section, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station or Police Officer making the arrest shall forward the person to the Presiding Officer holding the Special Court of the jurisdiction and the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply mutatis mutandis for summary trial. (4) For the purpose of speedy trial of offence under this section the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court by notification constitute as many Special Courts as may be considered necessary, each consisting of an Officer not below the rank of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (4) For the purpose of speedy trial of offence under this section the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court by notification constitute as many Special Courts as may be considered necessary, each consisting of an Officer not below the rank of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (5) For the cases referred to in sub-section (2), the Revenue Officer immediately after restoration of land under subsection (1) shall file a complaint in the Special Court constituted under subsection (4) for action as provided, in subsection (2). (6) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed by a Special Court under this section within sixty days of the passing of such order. 187. C. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the burden of proof for the purpose of Section 187 B that the transfer of land was not made in contravention of subsection (1) of Section 187 or occupation of land was not made without lawful authority shall lie on the transferee or occupier, as the case may be. 187. D. (1) Where the possession of any land is restored to a person belonging to the scheduled Tribes under any of the above provisions is re-transferred by the person belonging Scheduled Tribes in contravention of section 187 and the Revenue Officer specially empowered has reasons to believe that the land holder belonging to Scheduled Tribes shall not be in a position to retain the land so retransferred even after subsequent restoration, the Revenue Officer shall evict the person to whom the land so retransferred and entrust the management of the same to a Committee as may be WA 73 OF 2007 Page 12 of 19 constituted by the State Government Officials for a period of one year and if, after the expiry of this period, the Committee holds that the land holder belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall not be in a position to retain the land if restored, then such land shall vest to the Government free from all encumbrances and the Collector shall allot the land to the eligible tribals of the area under such condition as may be prescribed. (2) The manner of Constitution, conduct of business, power and function of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) The manner of Constitution, conduct of business, power and function of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. Explanation:-For the purpose of Section 187, 187B, 187C and 187D, the word 'transfer' shall mean sale, mortgage, lease, exchange and gift as defined in Transfer of property Act, 1882 and include parting with fully or partly of ownership or possession of any land or any interest therein in any other manner whatsoever but shall not include the requisition and acquisition of land under any law for the time being in force. 187. E. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a petition for restoration of possession of land by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes against a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall lie at any time. 187. F. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no suit for declaration of title over any land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall lie in a Civil Court and no Civil Court shall pass a decree or order by which title of land stands transferred from a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes to a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. 187. G. (1) Wherever an offence under this Act has been committed after the commencement of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Sixth Amendment) Act, 1994 by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was committed was in change of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or a connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 7. On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 187 as was in force after the Second Amendment and as it stands now after Sixth Amendment of 1994 the provisions of Section WA 73 OF 2007 Page 14 of 19 187 and Sections 187(B) to 187(G), as reproduced above, it would appear that it is composite in itself, aimed at rendering protective umbrella for the members of Scheduled Tribe from alienating their land so that they are not subjected to exploitation by reasons of economic or other disparities. 8. Learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition in respect of the case of appellants in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned judgment observed thus: 16. In such a situation, it would be necessary to examine as to what right could accrue on the writ petitioners, on the strength of the unregistered instruments, on the basis of which they have put forward their respective claims over the lands, which were earlier owned by tribals and which have been ordered to be restored to the possession of the tribals or their successors-in-interest. 17. In my view, no "transfer" of tribal land is valid and permissible in favour of a non- tribal without the previous permission of the Collector in writing and such "transfer" shall not also be valid unless made by a registered instrument. 17. In my view, no "transfer" of tribal land is valid and permissible in favour of a non- tribal without the previous permission of the Collector in writing and such "transfer" shall not also be valid unless made by a registered instrument. That being the position of law, as can be seen from the TLR & LR Act, the right of "transfer" claimed by the petitioners on the strength of transfer of possession by the unregistered instruments, cannot be made the basis for claiming a right over the land, although the said instruments appear to have been executed prior to 1.1.1969. There are some dispute raised with regard to the actual date of execution of the deed in respect of Civil Rule No. 574 of 1997 and W.P.(C) No. 352 of 2006, where the writ petitioners claimed that the deeds have been executed prior to 1.1.1969, whereas a contra claim has been made that the deeds have been executed after 1.1.1969. 9. The observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smti. Saraju Bardhan vs. State of Tripura & Ors., reported in (1988) 2 GLR 83, has got relevance in the facts and circumstances of this case. The observation made by the Court in paragraphs 6 and 9 may be reproduced here, which reads thus: 6. The Supreme law of the country, the Constitution of India with the avowed object among others to secure justice, social, and economic and to promote fraternity assuring dignity of the individual has in recognition of the need for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and for the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in clause 4 of Article 15, provided that the State could make special provision for the purpose. The anxiety of the framers of our Constitution in that regard is clear to all and in various laws enacted by the State such as laws made to carry our land reforms, provisions as considered necessary have been made to protect the interests of the scheduled tribes. The Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 is such a law which finds place at serial No.64 in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31-B of the Constitution of India which means that the said law subject to the competency of the legislature is beyond any challenge in regard to its validity. 9. The Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 is such a law which finds place at serial No.64 in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31-B of the Constitution of India which means that the said law subject to the competency of the legislature is beyond any challenge in regard to its validity. 9. The petitioner's submission that the Sub-Divisional Officer had found that the petitioner's predecessor Prakash Mahajan had acquired the under raiyat rights in the year 1950 is not at all correct. We have carefully perused the order dated 30.1.86 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Belonia(Annexure-I). We have not found any such finding or even any observation that the petitioner's predecessor Prakash Mahajan had acquired under raiyat rights in the year 1950. The materials on record do not at all bear our the said submission for the petitioner, which is sought to be made the foundation of the petitioner's further contentions. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner's predecessor had acquired under raiyat rights in the year 1950, under the earlier Act of 1886. The 'Solenama', i.e. compromise decree in WA 73 OF 2007 Page 16 of 19 Title Suit in the Court of Munsiff in the year 1970 was considered by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Belonia and was rightly not accepted as of any help. We are inclined to think that there being no material to establish the basic fact that Prakash Mahajan had acquired under raiyat right in the year 1950, the compromise decree in the Civil Court could not, in contravention of the provision of Section 187 of the Act, have given rise to creation of any rights. The learned S.D.O., Belonia has observed that such solenama was executed after 1969 to circumvent the said provision, that is, Section 187(1) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed from the order of the learned S.D.O.(Annexure-1), we are inclined to think that the said observation cannot be considered to be incorrect or unjustified, for we do think that any action in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 187(1) of the Act, even if it be a 'compromise' filed in a Court, shall not affect the rights of member of the Scheduled Tribes. 10. Let us now answer the points raised by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty in view of the position of law noticed above. 10. Let us now answer the points raised by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty in view of the position of law noticed above. [If we carefully and meticulously go through the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 187, both before and after the Sixth Amendment Act, it would appear that any transfer of land belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be effected only by a registered instrument. So, any instrument, not being a registered one, has no value in the eye of law and no Court shall recognize such an instrument. The appellants and their predecessor were claiming their right under an unregistered instrument. If that instrument/deed goes, there is nothing for the appellants to show that the transfer was effected before 01.01.1969. Sub-Section (3) of Section 187 was in existence before Sixth Amendment Act came into force. After Sixth Amendment, Sub-Section (3) has been deleted and at present there is nothing to claim that transfer held before 01.01.1969 shall not be disturbed. Clause (b) of Section 187B, as reproduced above, speaks that if any land owned by person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is occupied by any person, who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without lawful authority, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner as provided in Clause (a) of Section 187B may restore the possession of such land to the person or successor in interest so dispossessed. According to proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 187 of the Act, as it was before Sixth Amendment Act, 1994, a transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal would only be effected strictly under a registered instrument and not otherwise and such registered instrument was to be made with the previous written permission of the Collector and otherwise it would be deemed to be void. In the case in hand, the alleged deed of transfer, effected by Nama Charan Chakma in favour of Lalit Mohan Sahaji, as alleged on 04.06.1967, is of no consequence because any such transfer by dint of an unregistered instrument was just void, irrespective of the transaction was before or after 01.01.1969. The word, 'transfer' has been defined/explained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 187(d), which includes transfer of possession of any land or any interest therein in any manner whatsoever. The word, 'transfer' has been defined/explained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 187(d), which includes transfer of possession of any land or any interest therein in any manner whatsoever. The decision of the learned Single Judge that the transfer of possession was also a transfer and so it shall come within the purview of the mischief of Section 187, was a correct finding and was according to the law laid down in the Act. It is a settled principle that "What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". While transfer of land between tribal to non tribal has been completely forbidden without a registered instrument with previous permission in writing from the Collector, any instrument in violation of such provision, in whatever manner it may be, is liable to be treated as void ab initio and deserves no consideration in the eye of law. Further, we find that Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, was in existence before Sixth Amendment Act, came into force on 11.02.1996. The writ petition was filed in 1997 claiming advantage of the provisions prescribed in Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, which was not in existence at the relevant point of time of decision of the writ petition. The argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, therefore, has no merit at all. The word, 'transfer' has been defined/explained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 187(d), which includes transfer of possession of any land or any interest therein in any manner whatsoever. The decision of the learned Single Judge that the transfer of possession was also a transfer and so it shall come within the purview of the mischief of Section 187, was a correct finding and was according to the law laid down in the Act. It is a settled principle that "What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". While transfer of land between tribal to non tribal has been completely forbidden without a registered instrument with previous permission in writing from the Collector, any instrument in violation of such provision, in whatever manner it may be, is liable to be treated as void ab initio and deserves no consideration in the eye of law. Further, we find that Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, was in existence before Sixth Amendment Act, came into force on 11.02.1996. Further, we find that Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, was in existence before Sixth Amendment Act, came into force on 11.02.1996. The writ petition was filed in 1997 claiming advantage of the provisions prescribed in Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, which was not in existence at the relevant point of time of decision of the writ petition. The argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, therefore, has no merit at all. 11. Section 187(C) has prescribed that the burden of proof is on the transferee or occupier to show that the occupation of land was not made without lawful authority, and as such, burden cannot be shifted on the tribal transferor. The appellants and their predecessor centered their claim based on the impugned unregistered agreement dated 04.06.1967, which WA 73 OF 2007 Page 19 of 19 has got no legal implication at all. No other evidence adduced by them. Under such circumstances, according to the scheme of law prescribed under the Act, the land was liable to be restored to the tribal transferee. The argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, that since it was not a transfer according to law, whereas the appellants and their predecessor were/are in possession, they cannot be ejected except the procedure prescribed by law, has also stands no merit at all. The provisions, reproduced above, have clearly prescribed the procedure, to restore the land if it is found that the transfer was effected in violation thereof. The impugned order dated 13.02.1996 passed by respondent No.2, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no merit in the appeal, and hence, the appeal is dismissed but without costs. Appeal dismissed