1988 (7) TMI 412 - SC - Indian Laws

SC upholds land transfer restrictions in scheduled areas protecting tribals from exploitation under Article 19(1)(f)

The SC upheld restrictions on land transfers in scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh, rejecting challenges to provisions prohibiting non-tribal to non-tribal ... Validity of a provision in so far as it prohibits the transfer of any immovable property situated in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh by a 'non-tribal' in favour of another 'non-tribal' - Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the impugned provision under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India - Meaning of the word 'land' - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact it would be unjust, unfair and highly unreasonable merely to freeze the situation instead of reversing the injustice and restoring the status-quo-ante. The provisions merely command that if a land holder voluntarily and on his own volition is desirous of alienating the land, he may do so only in a favour of a 'tribal'. It would be adding insult to injury to impose such a disability only on the tribals (the victims of oppression and exploitation themselves) and discriminate against them in this regard whilst leaving the 'non-tribals' to thrive on the fruits of their exploitation at the cost of 'tribals'. The 'non-tribal' economic exploiters cannot be installed on the pedestal of immunity and accorded a privileged treatment by permitting them to transfer the lands and structures, if any, raised on such lands, to 'non-tribals' and make profits at the cost of the tribals. It would not only be tantamount to perpetuating the exploitation and injustice, it would tantamount to placing premium on the exploitation and injustice perpetrated by the non-tribals. Thus it would be the height of unreasonableness to impose the disability only on the tribals whilst leaving out the 'non-tribals'. It would also be counter productive to do so. It is precisely for this reason that the Architects of the Constitution have with far sight and foresight provided in paragraph 5(2) of Fifth Schedule that the Governor may make regulations inter alia 'prohibiting or restricting the transfer of land in the scheduled areas notwithstanding any provision embodied in the Constitution elsewhere'. And as has emerged from the foregoing discussion, it is unreasonable to restrict the prohibition against transfer to 'tribals'. It has to be made comprehensive enough to embrace the 'non-tribals' as well. With the improvement in the economic conditions of the 'tribals', there would not be much difficulty in finding 'tribal' purchasers. Besides, Section 3(1)(c) thoughtfully provides even for the contingency of not being able to find a 'tribal' willing or prepared to purchase the property. This provision obliges the State Government to acquire the property on payment of compensation as provided therein. One can envisage that some hardship would be occasioned to the owners to lands located in the scheduled areas. But such hardship would operate equally on the 'tribals' as well as the 'non-tribals'. Such hardship notwithstanding keeping in mind the larger perspective of the interest of the community in its entirety in the light of the foregoing discussion, the restrictions cannot be condemned as unreasonable. More so if the factor that the original acquisition by the 'non-tribals' from 'tribals' was polluted by the sins of exploitation committed by the 'non-tribals' is not ignored. To interpret the expression 'land' in its narrow sense is to render the benevolent provisions impotent and ineffective. In that event the prohibition can be easily circumvented by just raising a farm house or a structure on the land. The impugned provisions were inserted by the Amending Regulation precisely to plug such loopholes and make the law really effective. The High Court was perfectly justified in repelling this meritless plea. It is therefore not possible to accede to this submission. Equally meritless in the submission that the presumption embodied in Section 3(1)(b) is unreasonable. The reasoning is impeccable and faultless. The plea must accordingly fail. The appeals must therefore fail and be dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the prohibition on the transfer of immovable property in scheduled areas by non-tribals to non-tribals.2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the impugned provision under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.3. Retrospective or prospective operation of the 1970 Regulation.4. Validity of the presumption under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1970 Regulation.5. Interpretation of the term 'land' in the context of the impugned provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the prohibition on the transfer of immovable property in scheduled areas by non-tribals to non-tribals:The appellants challenged the validity of the provision prohibiting the transfer of immovable property situated in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh by a non-tribal in favor of another non-tribal. The High Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The Court emphasized the socio-economic landscape and the historical exploitation of tribals by non-tribals, which necessitated such legislation. The regulation aimed to protect the tribals from further exploitation and to restore the lands originally belonging to them. The Court concluded that the prohibition was reasonable and essential for the protection of the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the impugned provision under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India:The appellants argued that the restrictions imposed by the impugned provision were unreasonable and violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. However, the Court noted that Article 19(1)(f) was repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1979, and thus, the challenge could not survive. The Court further examined the reasonableness of the restrictions in light of the socio-economic context and the need to protect the tribals from exploitation. The Court held that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary to achieve the objective of preserving and protecting the interests of the tribals.3. Retrospective or prospective operation of the 1970 Regulation:The question of whether the 1970 Regulation had retrospective or prospective operation was not addressed in this judgment, as it was pending in another set of appeals before the Court. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on this issue in the present judgment.4. Validity of the presumption under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1970 Regulation:The appellants challenged the presumption under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1970 Regulation, which presumed that any immovable property in possession of a non-tribal was acquired through transfer from a tribal unless proven otherwise. The Court upheld the validity of this presumption, stating that it was a rebuttable presumption and a rule of evidence. The Court reasoned that non-tribals who acquired lands from tribals could reasonably be expected to disclose their title to the properties. This presumption aligned with the rule of evidence under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the person with special knowledge of the fact.5. Interpretation of the term 'land' in the context of the impugned provisions:The appellants argued that the term 'land' in paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule V of the Constitution should be interpreted in its restricted sense, excluding structures on the land. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the term 'land' in its legal sense is comprehensive and includes structures raised on it. The Court cited various legal sources to support this interpretation and emphasized that interpreting 'land' narrowly would render the provisions ineffective, allowing circumvention by raising structures on the land. The Court concluded that the High Court was justified in repelling this plea.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the constitutionality and reasonableness of the impugned provisions. The Court emphasized the need to protect the tribals from exploitation and to restore their lands. The presumption under Section 3(1)(b) was deemed valid, and the term 'land' was interpreted comprehensively to include structures. The Court's decision aimed to ensure the welfare of the tribals and prevent further exploitation by non-tribals.