Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
1988 (7) TMI 412 - SC - Indian LawsValidity 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.
|