Son Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

With respect to W.P.(C) No. 1632/2018 learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners No. 1 and 2, who are daughters of Lachchuram, had an equal share according to the

¶25

2

¶26

provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act over the property acquired by the National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for brevity 'NMDC'). He would further submit that though the compensation was paid to the petitioners separately by the NMDC in lieu of the acquisition of land, the employment has not been offered. He would also submit that the property which was initially recorded in the name of Lachchuram was partitioned between the family members including the petitioners; therefore, they have the right to get employment according to the rehabilitation plan.

¶27

With respect to W.P.(C) No. 1633/2018 learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property which was acquired by the NMDC in the year 2009 was originally recorded in the name of Sukhdas S/o Sukhman and at the time of acquisition the property was not partitioned.

¶28

Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Danamma Alias Suman Surpur and Another vs. Amar and Others , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 343 , wherein in paras- 19 and 25 it has been held as under:-

¶29

“ 19. That apart, we are of the view that amendment to the aforesaid section vide Amendment Act, 2005 clinches the issue, beyond any pale of doubt, in favour of the appellants. This amendment now confers upon the daughter of the coparcener as well the status of coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and gives same rights and liabilities in the coparcener properties as she would have had if she had been a son. The amended provision reads as under:

¶30

“ 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. – (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall –

¶31

( a ) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

¶32

3

¶33

( b ) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

¶34

( c ) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,

¶35

and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:

¶36

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20^th day of December 2004.

¶37

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.

¶38

(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and –

¶39

( a ) the daughter is alloted the same share as is alloted to a son;

¶40

( b ) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be alloted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

¶41

( c ) the share of the pre-deceased child of a predeceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be alloted to the child of such predeceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

¶42

Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

¶43

4

¶44

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt:

¶45

Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect--

¶46

( a ) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

¶47

( b ) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) had not been enacted.

¶48

Explanation. – For the purposes of clause ( a ), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005)

¶49

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20^th day of December 2004.

¶50

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.

¶51

25. Hence, it is clear that the right to partition has not been abrogated. The right is inherent and can be availed of by any coparcener; now even a daughter who is a coparcener. ”

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for the NMDC/respondent No. 2 would vehemently argue that the NMDC was being governed by the Chhattisgarh Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh. They would further submit that clause 7.1 of the aforesaid Policy says

¶53

5

¶54

that one person of each displaced family who remained owner of the land (individually or jointly) continuously for three years prior to the date of issue of notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will be provided with employment in accordance with his/her eligibility and suitability. They would also submit that the notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was issued on 25.12.2009 and at that time the entire property bearing survey Nos. 234/9 & 234/11 admeasuring 0.06 hectares situated at Village Aamaguda, Block Development Jagdalpur, District Bastar was recorded in the name of Lachchuram, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get employment in lieu of land acquisition.

¶55

I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶56

It is apparent that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.12.2009; and the aforesaid notification was published on 02.04.2010; thereafter possession of the entire land was handed over to the NMDC on 14.08.2010; and eventually, the final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 03.08.2010. Later, compensation was paid to the land oustees by the NMDC. The petitioners received separate cheques, though acquired lands were not partitioned at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, later, entire property of the petitioners was partitioned between the family members, and therefore, the separate cheques were issued in favour of the owners of the respective share of the property.

¶57

Clause 7.1 of the Chhattisgarh Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 which

¶58

6

¶59

governs the field, as the same was adopted by the NMDC, specifically says that one person of each displaced family who remained owner of the land (individually or jointly) continuously for three years prior to the date of issuance of notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will be provided with employment in accordance with his/her eligibility and suitability.

¶60

In W.P.(C.) No. 1632/2018 Lachchuram was the original owner of the property, whereas in WP(C) No. 1633/2018 the property was recorded in the name of Sukhdas S/o Sukhman and thus acquired lands were not recorded in the name of the petitioners.

¶61

With regard to the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act; the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Danamma (supra) would apply in the case of daughters and they will get the status of coparceners in the property of their father. In the case at hand, in W.P.(C.) No. 1632/2018, petitioners No. 1 and 2, who are daughters of late Lachchuram, would certainly get their right over the property acquired and they have been awarded compensation also however there cannot be any claim for employment in light of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act nor can such a right be claimed.

¶62

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, the above-captioned petitions have no merit, therefore, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶65

vatti

Son Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Son Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.M. Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Someshwar Kosariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Legend Distilieries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushma Dadu Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagsaay Vs State of Chhattisgarh