LexLINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
J)
E
F
G
H
224
LINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.
December 4, 1984
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIA!l JJ.J
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14, 19 (/) ({), 31, 46 and Entry 18 list
II Seventh Schedule: Ma~arashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes A.ct
1974, Sections 2 (/) (i), 3, 4 and 9A & Advocates Act 1961, Section 30. State
enactment providing for annulment of transfers of agricultural lands by tribals to
non-tribals and for restoration of pos.vession-State legislature-Competency to
enact-Enactment whether valitl and constitutional-Prescribing a date for
annulment of transfers-Whether arbitrary and void-Bar on advocates appearing
in proceedings under the Act-Whether valid and reasonable.
Statutory Interpretation-Distributive justice-what is-Law to be used as
instrument of distributive justice-Emphasised.
Legislation was undertaken by different States placing restrictions on
transfer of lands by members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in pursuance of
the declared policy of the State of safeguarding, protecting and improving the
conditions of weaker sections of the society by providing that any such transfer
except in terms of the provisions of the different Acts shall be null ·and void.
The State Government of Maharashtra by a Government Resolution
appointed a Committee to inquire into and report on how far the provisions of
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the Bombay Tenancy & Agricul~
tural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958 the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agri·
cultural Lands Act, 1950 and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1948 had been effective in giving protection to persons belonging to
Scheduled Tribes and to suggest suitable amendments, if any of the existing
provisions were found to be inadequate. The Committee submitted its Report,
and pointed out that inspite of section 36 (2) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
1966, and analogous provisions in the earlier Land Revenue Laws, these were
not found sufficient, and persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes because of
their poverty, lack of education and general backwardness bad been exploited
by various persons and deprived of their lands, and recommended that pro·
vision should be made for restoring to persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes
the lands which had been duly transferred to other persons. After considering
tlie aforesaiq recoaiaiendation, the State Governaien\ of Maharashtra ena~~4
'
't
•
\
L.P. APPELWAR V. MAHARASHTRA
225
the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. This ]!
A
Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
J
- ..... ,
The Appellant purchased
agricultural lands from the father of
Respondent No. 2 by a registered sale deed with the prior permission of the
Collector as reQuired by Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 and was placed in posl\ession thereof. The Sub.Divisional
Officer finding that the vendor was a gond, and a tribal within the meaning of
section 2 (l) (j)ofthe Act initiated suo motu proceedings under section 3 (I) of
the Act for restoration of the lands to respondent No. 2, and after enquiry
finding that respondent No. 2 had given an undertaking in form III that he
required the land for his personal cultivation and :was willing to deposit the
amount fixed by him for payment of the appellant, directed under section 3 (I)
(ii) of the Act that possession should be restored to respondent No. 2.
B
0
"'
The appellant preferred an appeal under section 6 to tho Land Revenue
··~
Tribunal, which upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The
Writ Petition of the appellant, was dismissed in limlne and this order was
confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
In the Appeals to this Court, it was contended on
behalf of the
appellants : (I) that sections 3 (!) and -4 of the Act which provide for
annulment of transfers of land by tribals to non-tribals effected during the
period from April t, 1957 to July 6, 1974 and for restoration of possession to
them was beyond the legislative competence of the State under Entry, 18 in List
2 of the Seventh Schedule, (2) sections 3 (1) and 4 are inconsistent with, take
away and abridge the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 (I) (f)
and 31, (3) The adoption of the date April I, 1957 as the date from which there
was to be an annulmExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.