Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors.
AIR1997SC3297, (1997)8SCC191, [1997]Supp2SCR305
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: K. Ramaswamy, Saiyed Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Patnaik, JJ.
Date of Decision: 11.07.1997
FACTS:-
These appeals are directed to resolve mutually inconsistent law adumbrated by two Division Benches of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appeals are filed against the judgment passed in which the Division Bench has held that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation (1 of 1959), as amended by Regulation 2 of 1970(for short, the ‘Regulation’) and the Mining Act (67 of 1957) do not prohibit grant of mining leases of Government land in the scheduled area to the non-tribals. It also held that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, the ‘FC Act’) does not apply to the renewals. The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 also does not apply to the renewal of the leases. It, accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the power of the Government to transfer the Government land situated in the tribal area to the non-tribals for mining purpose.
Another Division Bench, earlier had taken dramatically the opposite view and held that mining leases are illegal, and held that, the word’ ‘person’ used in Section 3 of the Regulation includes Government. Any lease to the non-tribals even of a Government land situated in scheduled area is in violation of Section 3 and so is void. Equally, it held that a mining lease in a forest area for non-forest purpose or renewal thereof, without prior approval of the Central Government, is in violation of Section 2 of the FC Act.
ISSUES:-
- Whether State Government has power to transfer the land comprised in a scheduled area to a non-tribal?
- Whether the word ‘person’ in the regulation should be interpreted differently or it includes both natural as well as juristic person?
JUDGMENT:-
The executive power of the State to dispose of its property under Article 298 is subject to the provisions in the Fifth Schedule as an integral scheme of the Constitution. The legislative power of the State under Article 245 is also subject to the Fifth Schedule, to regulate the allotment of the Government land in the scheduled areas. The Fifth Schedule to the Constitution empowers the Governor to regulate allotment of the land by para 5(2)(b) read with Section 3 of the Regulation of the land be it between natural persons, i.e., tribals and non-tribals: it imposes total prohibition on transfer of the land in scheduled area. The object of the Fifth Schedule and the Regulation is to preserve tribal autonomy, their culture and economic empowerment to ensure social, economic and political justice for preservation of peace and good Government in the scheduled area. Therefore, all relevant clauses in the Schedule and the Regulation should harmoniously and widely be read so as to elongate the aforesaid constitutional objectives and dignity of person to the Scheduled Tribes, preserving the integrity of the scheduled areas and ensuring distributive justice as an integral scheme thereof. Clauses (a) and (c) of sub-para (2) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule prohibits transfers inter vivos between tribals and non-tribal natural persons and prevents money-lenders to exploit the tribals. Clause (b) intends to regulate allotment of land not only among tribals but also prohibits allotment of the land belonging to the Government to the non-tribals. In that behalf, wider interpretation of “regulation” would include “prohibition” which should be read into that clause. If so read, it subserves the constitutional objective of regulating the allotment of the land in scheduled areas exclusively to the Scheduled Tribes. Clause 5(2)(b) ensures distributive justice of socio-economic empowerment which yields meaningful results in reality. If purposive construction, in this backdrop is adopted, no internal or external contradiction would emerge.
There is no reason to consider the word ‘person’ in a narrow sense. It must be construed in a broader perspective, unless the statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, exempts the State from the operation of the Act as against the State and would include “State Government”. The word “person” in Section 3(1)(a) would include not merely the natural persons, in the context of tribal and non-tribal who deal with the land in scheduled areas by transfer inter vivos but all juristic person in the generic sense, including the Corporation aggregate or Corporation sole. State, Corporation, partnership firm, a company, any person with corporate veil or persons of all hues, either as transferor or transferee so that the word ‘regulate’ in para 5(2)(b) of the Fifth Schedule in relation to the land in scheduled areas would be applicable to them either as transferor or transferee of land in scheduled area. It, thus, manifests the constitutional and legislative intention that tribals and a Co-operative Society consisting solely of tribal members alone should be in possession and enjoyment of the land in the scheduled area as dealt with in various enactments starting from Gunjam and Vizianagaram Act, 1839 to the present regulation.
There is no internal and external contradiction in this process of harmonious and purposive interpretation of para 5(2)(a) of the Fifth Schedule which regulates transfers between natural persons; para 5(2)(b) encompasses within its ambit, the transfer by the Government of its land to a non -tribal and Clause (c) or the relevant clauses in Sections 3 and 4 of the Regulation. The Regulation prevents exploitation of the tribals through the State Government; from the other end, it does not allow parting with of their land and prevents induction of non-tribals into the scheduled area by allotment of the land or by regulating allotment of the land, be it private or private corporate aggregate. This interpretation per se, therefore, is public law interpretation to subserve the constitutional purpose without recourse to private law principles.
HELD:-
The State exercises its power under the Article 298 to dispose of its property only for public purpose and for achieving constitutional goals. The interpretation of the words ‘person’, ‘regulation’ and ‘distribution’ require to be broached broadly to elongate socioeconomic justice to the tribals. If a tribal is unwilling to purchase land from a non-tribal, the State Government is enjoined to purchase the land from a non-tribal as per the principles set down in the regulation and to distribute the same to a tribal or a Co-operative Society solely composed of tribals.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
