SAMATHA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 11-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SAMATHA 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD 
AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14, 17, 21, 23, 38, 39, 46, 162, 244, 
245, 298 Fifth Schedule-Para 5. 
A 
B 
c 
Rese1ved Forest Area--Grant of mining leases by Govemment to 11011-
t1ibals-Pennissibility of-Object of Fifth Schedule discussed-'Reg11latio11' 
includes 'Prohibition '-Executive power under Alticle 298 and legislative 
power under Arlicle 245-Power to dispose ·Govemment property is subject to 
Fifth Schedule--legislative and constitutional history of protection to 
Scheduled TTibes discussed. 
D 
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Tramfer Regulation, 1959 : 
Section 3(1)(a), 3(4). 
Schedrtled Tribe-Immovable 
property situated in agency 
tract~~Prohibition for transfer inf avour of 1wn-tTibals-Word 'person' in first E 
paTt of clause (a) includes State Govemment and its instiumentalities-Word · 
'Person' used elsewhere refers to only natural persons-Grallt of mining lease 
in rese1ved forest inf avour of non-t1ibals held void-Transfer of Governmellt 
land in favour of public corporation for public pu1pose held not 
prohibited-Transferee should conllibute for social, economic and education-
F 
al development of scheduled TTibes-Scope a11d power of Government to 
dispose prope1ty i11 Scheduled area-Constitutional limitation 011 such proper-
ties. 
Scheduled Tribe-Right to life and economic .empowennent. 
Mi11es a11d 111i11erals (Regulation and Develop111e11t) Act, 1957: Section 
11(5) (As ame11ded in 1991) 
Scheduled Area-Mining leases in:-Grant to non- tlibals-Validity of 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 
305 
G 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Rese1ved Fores~ining leases in--Orant and renewal by State in 
favour of 11on-t1ibals-Effect and validity of 
Forest (Conservation) Act, 198(}-Section 2-11 Reserved forests-Ap-
plicability of Act to. 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1872-Section 105 
Leas-Definition of 
Words and Phrases : 
C 
'Person '-Meaning of-In the context of A.P. Schedule Area Land 
Transfer Regulation, 1959. 
'Peace and Good Govemment'-Meaning and scope of-In the context 
of Para 5(2) of Fifth Schedule to•Constitution of India 'Forest and Forest 
Land'-Meaning of-'Socialism'-Meaning of-In the context of Preamble to 
D the Constitution of India. 
State of Andhra Pradesh granted mining leases to several non-tribal 
persons in the reserved forest area of Anantagiri Manda! of Visakhapat-
nam District-The appellant-Society, claiming to protect the interests 
E and life of the Scheduled Tribes in the area, filed two Writ Petitions in 
public interest before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the 
power of the Government to grant mining leases in favour of non-tribals 
in the scheduled area. It sought issue of mandamus to terminate the 
mining leases which had been granted and/or renewed in favouir of the 
private respondents inter alia on the grounds that (i) the said leases 
F 
contravened the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land 
Transfer Regulation, 1959 (As amended in 1970) as well as the provisions 
of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980; (ii) Such leases were prohibited 
under Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Develop· 
ment) Act, 1957 (As amended by 1991 Act). 
G 
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions 
holding that (i) the word 'Person' in Section 3(1) of the Regulation does 
not include the Government and as such the Government was not 
prohibited from transferring the Government land in favour ofnon-tribals 
within the scheduled area; (ii) The Regulation does not prohibit transfer 
H of the Government land by way of lease to the non-tribals; (iii) in order to 
._ 
-
SAMATHA v. STATE 
307 
prohibit grant of mining lease in favour of the non-tribals within the A 
scheduled area Section 11 (5) of the MMRD Act was introduced in the year 
1991. But the said provision was prospective in nature and would not apply 
to the existing leases; (iv) Prior approval of the Central Government under 
Section 2 of the Forest ((:onservation) Act was not required where the land 
in question has already been broken; (v) Forest (Conservation) Act applies B 
to the reserved forest and since it was not established as to the extent of 
the land covered by the mining leases which form a part of the reserved 
forest and since the joi;1t survey conducted indicated that there was no 
lessee who was occu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.