REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6901 OF 2022
Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs       …Appellants
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition 
Officer & Ors.                                         …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Orissa   at   Cuttack   in   Land
Acquisition   Appeal   No.79   of   2015   by   which   the   High   Court   has
dismissed   the   said   appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant   herein   and   has
confirmed   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Reference   Court,   the
original applicant has preferred the present appeal.
1

2. The  dispute   is  with  respect  to  the  apportionment  of  the  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 (the appellant herein).   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.
2.1 At   the   instance   of   the   appellant   claiming   to   be   the   daughter   of
Chakradhar and claiming 1/5 th
 share in the amount of compensation a
reference   was   made   to   the   Reference   Court   under   Section   30   of   the
Land   Acquisition   Act.     The   Reference  Court  –  the   learned   Senior  Civil
Judge,   Sundargarh   rejected   the   claim   of   the   appellant/share   of   the
2

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   against   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily
relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Madhu Kishwar &
Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors. , (1996) 5 SCC 125 in support of his
submission that the appellant being a daughter shall be entitled to the
share   in   the   amount   of   compensation   even   applying   the   provisions   of
the Hindu Succession Act.
3.1 It   is   vehemently   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.  It is submitted that as observed and held by this
3

Court   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. 
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   as   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   in   the
aforesaid   decision,   to   deny   the   equal   right   to   the   women/daughter
belonging   to   Scheduled   Tribe   would   be   gender­based   discrimination
and   the   daughter   cannot   be   denied   the   right   in   the   joint   family
property in which all coparceners have the equal share.
Making the above submissions and relying upon above decision,
it is prayed to allow the present appeal and to hold that the appellant
being   daughter   of   one   of   the   coparceners   shall   be   entitled   to   1/5 th
share in the amount of compensation.
4. Present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Dr.   Kedarnath
Tripathy,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   contesting
respondents.
4.1  It is submitted that in the present case the parties are members
of the Scheduled Tribe.  The suit land belongs to one Satyananda Negi
4

and   after   his   death,   the   said   land   devolved   upon   his   two   sons
Chakradhar   and   Gajadhar   with   the   right   of   survivorship   being
available.   The  said  Chakradhar  passed  away  in the  year  1948  before
the commencement of Constitution of India and the Hindu Succession
Act, 1954.  That after the death of Chakradhar and his wife, his share
in the property stood devolved upon his four sons who held 1/4 th
 share
each   by   way   of   succession.     After   more   than   60   years   of   such
succession by the four sons holding 1/4 th
 shares each, their properties
were   acquired   by   the   Government   for   establishment   of   Ultra   Mega
Power Project at Bhedabahal, District Sundargarh.   The compensation
for the acquisition of land was determined and the same was duly paid
to the four sons – respondents herein being the owners of the property.
It is submitted that thereafter the appellant herein filed an application
before   the   L.A.O.,   Sundargarh   claiming   their   1/5 th
  share   in   the
compensation   being   one   of   the   descendants   of   the   Satyananda   Negi.
That   the   matter   was   referred   to   the   Court   of   Senior   Civil   Judge,
Sundargarh   in   a   matter   of   reference   under   Section   30   of   the   Land
Acquisition   Act   made   by   the   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer.     The
learned Reference Court dismissed the application by holding that she
is not entitled to claim any amount in the amount of compensation as
being   member   of   the   Scheduled   Tribe,   the   provisions   of   Hindu
5

Succession   Act   shall   not   be   applicable   and   therefore,   she   would   not
have   any   right   of   survivorship   in   the   joint   family   property.   It   is
submitted that considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act
more particularly Section 2(2), the High Court has not committed any
error.
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   the   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   receive   any
share   in   the   suit   property   by   virtue   of   Section   8   of   the   Hindu
Succession   Act.     It   is   submitted   that   her   father   Chakradhar   passed
away   way   back   in   the   year   1948   before   the   enactment   of   the   Hindu
Succession  Act, 1954 and  even  before  the Constitution of India.    It is
submitted   that   apart   from   the   fact   that   in   view   of   Section   2(2)   of   the
Hindu   Succession   Act,   1954,   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.
4.3 It   is   further   submitted   that   as   per   Section   2(2)   of   the   Hindu
Succession Act, the Act shall not be applicable to the members of the
Scheduled Tribe.  It is submitted that in the case of  Labishwar Manjhi
6

vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors. , (2000) 8 SCC 587, 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.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   there   is   no
evidence   on   record   to   prove   that   the   parties   have   Hinduised.     It   is
submitted   therefore   Hindu   Succession   Act   shall   not   be   applicable   to
the parties herein.
4.4 It is  further submitted  that as  held  by  this Court in a catena of
decisions whenever there is a conflict between the law and equity, the
law would prevail.   Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in
the   case   of   B.   Premananda   and   Ors.   Vs.   Mohan   Koikal   and   Ors. ,
(2011)  4 SCC   266.   It  is  submitted  that as   observed  and  held  by  this
Court   in   the   case   of   J.P.   Bansal   vs.   State   of   Rajasthan   &   Anr.   AIR
(2003)   SC   1405   and   State   of   Jharkhand   &   Anr.   Vs.   Govind   Singh,
JT 2004 (10) SC 349, it is for the legislature to amend the law and not
the Court.
4.5 It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court on many occasions denied
extending   the   benefits   of   Hindu   Succession   Act   to   the   tribal
7

communities   unless   the   same   has   been   notified   by   the   Central
Government.     Reliance   is   placed   on   the   observations   made   by   this
Court in the case of  Madhu Kishwar  (supra).
Making   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the   present
appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
6. A short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is
whether   the   appellant/petitioner   being   the   daughter   is   entitled   to   the
share   in   the   compensation   with   respect   to   the   land   acquired,   on
survivorship   basis   under   the   provisions   of   Hindu   Succession   Act?   At
the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   appellant   belongs   to
tribal community and is a member of Scheduled Tribe. 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
8

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.  It is observed and held by this Court
in   the   case   of   Mohan   Koikal   (supra)   that   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.
6.1 If   the   claim   of   the   appellant   on   the   basis   of   the   survivorship
under   the   Hindu   Succession   Act   is   accepted   in   that   case   it   would
tantamount   to   amend   the   law.     It   is   for   the   legislature   to   amend   the
law and not the Court.
9

6.2 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court
in   the   case   of   Madhu   Kishwar   (supra)   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that by
the majority decision this Court refused to strike down the provisions
of   Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which provided the succession to
property in the male line of heirs   and denying the right to Succession
to the daughter, on the touchstone of Article 14.   However, this Court
read   into   the   said   provisions   and   observed   and   held   that   t he
intervening   right   of   female   dependents/descendants   under   Sections
7   and   8   of   the   Act   shall   be   carved   out,   by   suspending   the   exclusive
right   of   the   male   succession   till   the   female   dependent/descendent
chooses   other   means   of   livelihood   manifested   by   abandonment   or
release of the holding kept for the purpose.  This Court by observing so
disposed   of   the   writ   petition.     However,   by   disposing   the   writ   petition
this   Court   issued   direction   to   the   State   of   Bihar   to   comprehensively
examine   the   question   on   the   premise   of   our   constitutional   ethos   and
the need voiced to amend the law.
6.3 This   Court   also   directed   to   examine   the   question   of
recommending   to   the   Central   Government   whether   the   Central
Government consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions
10

given under  the Hindu Succession Act and the Indian Succession Act
in   so   far   as   the   applicability   of   these   provisions   to   the   Scheduled
Tribes in the State of Bihar is concerned.
6.4 However, Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy in his concurrent judgment
has   further   observed   and   held   that   the   provisions   of   the   Hindu
Succession   Act   and   the   Indian   Succession   Act   would   apply   to   the
Scheduled   Tribes,   the   general   principles   contained   therein   being
consistent with justice, equity, fairness, justness and good conscience
would   apply   to   them.     Thereafter   it   is   held   that   the   Scheduled   Tribe
women would succeed to the estate of their parent, brother, husband,
as   heirs   by   intestate   succession   and   inherit   the   property   with   equal
share   with   the   male   heir   with   absolute   rights   as   per   the   general
principles   of   the   Hindu   Succession   Act,   1956,   as   amended   and
interpreted by this Court.   However, it is required to be noted that the
same is minority view.
7. Under   the   circumstances   in   view   of   Section   2(2)   of   Hindu
Succession Act and the appellant being the member of the Scheduled
Tribe and as the female member of the Scheduled Tribe is specifically
excluded,   the   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   any   right   of   survivorship
11

under   the   provisions   of   Hindu   Succession   Act.     No   error   has   been
committed   by   the   High   Court.     The   appeal   therefore   deserves   to   be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.  
7.1 Before   parting,   we   may   observe   that   there   may   not   be   any
justification   to   deny   the   right   of   survivorship   so   far   as   the   female
member   of   the   Tribal   is   concerned.     When   the   daughter   belonging   to
the   non­tribal   is   entitled   to   the   equal   share   in   the   property   of   the
father,   there   is   no   reason   to   deny   such   right   to   the   daughter   of   the
Tribal  community.    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   by
which   the   Hindu   Succession   Act   is   not   made   applicable   to   the
members of the Scheduled Tribe.
7.2 Therefore, though we dismiss the present appeal, it is directed to
examine   the   question   by   the   Central   Government   to   consider   it   just
and   necessary   to   withdraw  the   exemptions   provided  under   the   Hindu
12

Succession   Act   in   so   far   as   the   applicability   of   the   provisions   of   the
Hindu Succession Act to the Scheduled Tribes and whether to bring a
suitable   amendment   or   not.     We   hope   and   trust   that   the   Central
Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision
taking   into   consideration   the   right   to   equality   guaranteed   under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 
…………………………..J.
        (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………...J.
       (KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi;
December 9, 2022.
13