LexP. RAMI REDDY & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. RAMI REDDY & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. JULY 14, 1988 IM.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ,I Andhra. Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Reg!'(ation, 1959 (Regulation I of 1959) made by the Gowrn.or !'nder p~ra 5,(£/ ()f fifth Schedule t() the Constitution. of lndi~-Sec.3(.1!,~As. s~bstituted b): . - - ' ' - - Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas L~nd Transfer (A,inendm~nt) R.~g!'-· lation, 1970 (Regulation I of 1970)-Interpretation of-Sec. 3(1) in so far as it prohibits transfer of immovable property situated in scheduled areas by a 'non-tribal' to another 'non-triba/'-Whether constitutionally invalid being violative of Article 19(1)(f) as it obtained at the relevant time till its repeal by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) in 1979-Held Constitutionally valid. Constitution of India-Fifth Schedule-Paragraph 5(2)(a)- Expression "Land"-Scope of-Whether used in narrow sense-- Held-Expression land is comprehensive-Wide enough to include structures raised thereon. A B c D' Section 3( 1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Trans- E fer Regulation 1959 (Regulation I of 1959) prohibited transfer of immovable properties situated in the scheduled areas from a member of scheduled tribe to non-tribals without previous sanction of the State Govemment. In order to facilitate effective enforcement of the said 1959 regulations, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer (Amendment) Regulation, 1970 was introduced. Regulation 1970 inter F alia brought the following changes namely (i) transfers of land in scheduled areas in favour of 'non-tribals' were wholly prohibited in future and (ii) non-tribals holding lands in the scheduled areas were prohibited from transferring their lands in favour of persons other than tribals. The appellants who owned lands in the scheduled areas having acquired them fr\lm tribals and 'non-tribals' were affected by this G amending Regulation of 1970: They filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging this regulation being unconstitutional. The High Court dis- missed the writ petitions. Hence these appeals by Certificate under ; Article 133(l)(a) ofthe Constitution. The main contention of the appel- lants was that the impugned provisions were unconstitutional as being violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitntion as it obtained at the H 443 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. A material time till it was repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth) Amendment in 1979 because they imposed unreasonable restrictions on the non-tribal holders of properties in the scheduled areas. Dismissing the appeals and while tracing a short history of the legislation, this Court, B HELD: Originally all the lands in these tracts were owned by the 'tribals'. With the advent of the 'non-tribals' in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, the lands changed hands from 'tribals' to 'non-trihals'. This change of ownership was a result of exploitation raising: (1) In the context of money lending operations and (2) in the context of dubious and unconscionable dealings in the course of trade. C The 'non-tribals' had so often circumvented the legislation enacted in order to protect the 'tribals' by recourse to benami transactions and by recourse to dubious devices. The poor ignorant, illiterate, and unsophisticated tribals had succumbed to the wiles of the economically stronger and unscrupulous 'non-tribals'. A legislation which in essence and substance aims at restoration to the 'tribals' of the lands which D originally belonged to the 'tribals' but which passed into the hands of 'non-tribals' in the aforesaid background certainly cannot be charac- terised as unreasonable. [455G-H; 456A-C] No unreasonableness is involved in making the prohibition against transfer to 'non-tribals' applicable to both the 'tribal' as also to the E 'non-tribal' owner in the scheduled area. As a matter of fact it would have been unreasonable to do otherwise. In the absence of protection, the economically stronger 'non-tribals' would in course of time devour all the available Lands and wipe out the very identity of the tribals who cannot survive in the absence of the only source of livelihood they presently have. [457C-D] F The submission that the prohibition against transferring the pro- perties to 'non-tribals' being in absolute terms, a 4non-tribal' cannot even raise a loan on his properties even in the event of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.