Gift Must Be Done By Executing Registered Deed: Patna High Court Rejects State's Claim Of Right Over Land Based On Oral Gift
The High Court held Writ Petition to be not maintainable, while relegating parties to Suit for determination of title over the land.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, Justice Rana Vikram Singh, Patna High Court
While granting liberty to a landowner to claim his land or compensation once his title is established by the Civil Court, the Patna High Court has held that the period of limitation is 30 years if a person is dispossessed illegally by the Government. The High Court further held that forcible expropriation of private property of a person from rural area by the State, without following any lawful procedure is violative of constitutional right under Article 300A, read with Article 21, of the Constitution of India.
The High Court was considering a Letters Patent Appeal challenging an order passed by the Single Judge.
The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh held, “We are not satisfied with the view subscribed by the learned Trial Court. If a person is dispossessed illegally by the Government, the period of limitation is 30 years”, it added.
“This liberty is granted to the appellant relying on the principle that the property is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Forcible expropriation of private property of a person from rural area by the State, without following any lawful procedure or compensation, is violative of constitutional right under Article 300A, read with Article 21, of the Constitution of India”, it added.
Advocate Madan Prasad Singh represented the Appellant while Additional Advocate General represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The writ petition was preferred by the petitioners for the issuance of directions to the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of their land by construction of water Head Tank and Pipe line channeling for water supply under ‘Jal Nal Yojana’ in village Siwari and other village for implementation of Jal Nal Yojana under instruction of a local body i.e. Gram Panchayat Manjhaul without either consent of land holder or acquisition of Land under Land acquisition process. The State had argued that the disputed land in question was donated to the Government by the ancestors of the appellant and the disputed land along with other land was the subject matter of a Title Suit.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that the Single Judge misplaced his logic, holding that the ancestors of the appellant transferred the land in favour of the Government by oral gift. “The gift being a mode of transfer is governed by the Transfer Of Property Act and it must be done by executing a registered deed of gift coupled with the intention of the doner to deliver possession of the property in question and acceptance thereof by the donee”, it explained.
The Bench further noted that the execution of a deed in gift and acceptance by the donee is a question of fact which cannot be ascertained by the Writ Court. Considering that the disputed land was the subject matter of a partition suit, the Bench held that until and unless the partition suit was disposed of by way of final decree, exclusive ownership of the appellant over the disputed land could not be established.
The Bench disposed of the appeal with the direction that it would be open for the appellant to either take recourse to recover the land or to seek compensation only after his exclusive title is established in the Title Suit.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had held that an oral gift of immovable property cannot confer any title upon the donee in the absence of a registered instrument executed in compliance with Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Cause Title: Santosh Kumar Ishwar v. The State Of Bihar (Letters Patent Appeal No.303 of 2024)