https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168754 Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 were upheld as a valid State law on transfer and alienation of agricultural land under Entry 18 of List II, because the power to regulate such transfers included the power to prohibit and reopen exploitative transactions. The Article 14 challenge failed: 1 April 1957 was a rational cut-off linked to the tenancy regime, special treatment of Scheduled Tribes was justified by their vulnerability, and the distinction between agricultural land and land diverted to non-agricultural use was based on a real difference. Section 9A was also sustained, as advocates have no absolute right of audience in every forum and litigants have no general fundamental right to counsel in all proceedings. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168754 Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 were upheld as a valid State law on transfer and alienation of agricultural land under Entry 18 of List II, because the power to regulate such transfers included the power to prohibit and reopen exploitative transactions. The Article 14 challenge failed: 1 April 1957 was a rational cut-off linked to the tenancy regime, special treatment of Scheduled Tribes was justified by their vulnerability, and the distinction between agricultural land and land diverted to non-agricultural use was based on a real difference. Section 9A was also sustained, as advocates have no absolute right of audience in every forum and litigants have no general fundamental right to counsel in all proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168754