CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that purchase of tribal land parcels by non-tribals is considered invalid when such transfer of property violates restrictions on alienation and acquisition of title rights of the land in favour of non-tribal is strictly prohibited.
Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi made the observations while dismissing the appeals filed by five non-tribals, who were in possession of about 90 acres of hill land in the Kalvarayan hills, seeking to set aside the orders of the district munsif court in Sankarapuram and principal subordinate court in Kallakurichi which ruled in favour of the respondent tribesmen.
The judge noted that in Tamil Nadu, the purchase of designated tribal lands (often held under conditional patta, ryotwari settlements, or notified hill areas) by non-tribals is generally considered invalid or void particularly when such transfers violate restrictions on alienation. Therefore, there is no difference between assigned land and patta land. The courts have consistently held that lands assigned to STs cannot be alienated to non-tribals. In fact, the tribes in the Kalrayan hills were issued settlement pattas that explicitly prohibited the transfer of lands to non-tribals, she said.
“Moreover, a tribal is considered to be incapable of protecting his own immovable property. Therefore, acquisition of title in favour of a non-tribal by invoking doctrine of adverse possession over the immovable property belonging to a tribal in a tribal area is strictly prohibited,” the judge said in the recent order.
Justice Thilakavadi held the local courts have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants and these orders do not warrant any interference.
The appeal was filed by Vinodhan Kandhaiah and his relatives against the 2019 orders of district munsif court in Sankarapuram which issued judgment and decree in favour of the respondent tribals and 2020 orders of principal subordinate court in Kallakurichy upholding the judgment and decree.
Advocate L Parvin Banu, representing five of the respondents-tribesmen, submitted that the plaintiffs cannot claim ownership of the land in the hills because they are not hill tribes or scheduled tribes but belong to the upper echelons of the society and are in illegal possession of 90 acres of hill land.