1984 (12) TMI 321 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Maharashtra Tribal Land Restoration Act Validity

LINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

LINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1985 AIR 389, 1985 (2) SCR 224, 1985 (1) SCC 479, 1984 (2) SCALE 1022 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Constitution.4. Reasonableness of the date April 1, 1957, for annulment of transfers.5. Differential treatment between Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.6. Denial of representation by legal practitioners u/s 9A of the Act.Summary:1. Constitutional Validity of Sections 3 and 4:The Supreme Court examined whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, which provide for annulment of transfers made by members of Scheduled Tribes and restoration of lands to them, were ultra vires the State Legislature and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, emphasizing its placement in the Ninth Schedule, making it immune under Article 31B from any challenge on the grounds of inconsistency with fundamental rights.2. Legislative Competence:The Court rejected the contention that the State Legislature lacked competence to enact the impugned Act under Entry 18 of List II. It was held that the Act, in its true nature and character, is a law relating to transfers and alienations of agricultural lands by members of Scheduled Tribes, and such legislation falls within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 18 in List II.3. Violation of Fundamental Rights:The Court dismissed the arguments that Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Act were violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31. The Act being placed in the Ninth Schedule is protected from such challenges under Article 31B. The Court also held that the provisions do not result in any arbitrary or unreasonable classification and are not violative of the equality clause.4. Reasonableness of the Date April 1, 1957:The adoption of April 1, 1957, as the date for annulment of transfers was held to be based on an intelligible classification. The date was chosen because it was the 'tiller's day' under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, providing a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.5. Differential Treatment Between Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes:The Court found no merit in the argument that the Act discriminates against Scheduled Castes. It was held that Scheduled Tribes constitute a distinct class requiring special protection. The Act's provisions were found to be rational and in line with the State's policy to protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes.6. Denial of Representation by Legal Practitioners u/s 9A:Section 9A of the Act, which prohibits legal practitioners from representing parties in proceedings under the Act, was upheld. The Court ruled that no litigant has a fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer in any Court, except under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The provision was deemed necessary to prevent undue delays and ensure swift restoration of lands to tribals.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, was upheld. The Act was found to be a valid exercise of legislative power aimed at protecting the interests of Scheduled Tribes and ensuring social justice.