1988 (7) TMI 412 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the prohibition on the transfer of immovable property in scheduled areas by non-tribals to non-tribals.
2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the impugned provision under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.
3. Retrospective or prospective operation of the 1970 Regulation.
4. Validity of the presumption under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1970 Regulation.
5. Interpretation of the term "land" in the context of the impugned provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the prohibition on the transfer of immovable property in scheduled areas by non-tribals to non-tribals:

The appellants challenged the validity of the provision prohibiting the transfer of immovable property situated in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh by a non-tribal in favor of another non-tribal. The High Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The Court emphasized the socio-economic landscape and the historical exploitation of tribals by non-tribals, which necessitated such legislation. The regulation aimed to protect the tribals from further exploitation and to restore the lands originally belonging to them. The Court concluded that the prohibition was reasonable and essential for the protection of the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.

2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the impugned provision under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India:

The appellants argued that the restrictions imposed by the impugned provision were unreasonable and violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. However, the Court noted that Article 19(1)(f) was repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1979, and thus, the challenge could not survive. The Court further examined the reasonableness of the restrictions in light of the socio-economic context and the need to protect the tribals from exploitation. The Court held that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary to achieve the objective of preserving and protecting the interests of the tribals.

3. Retrospective or prospective operation of the 1970 Regulation:

The question of whether the 1970 Regulation had retrospective or prospective operation was not addressed in this judgment, as it was pending in another set of appeals before the Court. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on this issue in the present judgment.

4. Validity of the presumption under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1970 Regulation:

The appellants challenged the presumption under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1970 Regulation, which presumed that any immovable property in possession of a non-tribal was acquired through transfer from a tribal unless proven otherwise. The Court upheld the validity of this presumption, stating that it was a rebuttable presumption and a rule of evidence. The Court reasoned that non-tribals who acquired lands from tribals could reasonably be expected to disclose their title to the properties. This presumption aligned with the rule of evidence under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the person with special knowledge of the fact.

5. Interpretation of the term "land" in the context of the impugned provisions:

The appellants argued that the term "land" in paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule V of the Constitution should be interpreted in its restricted sense, excluding structures on the land. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the term "land" in its legal sense is comprehensive and includes structures raised on it. The Court cited various legal sources to support this interpretation and emphasized that interpreting "land" narrowly would render the provisions ineffective, allowing circumvention by raising structures on the land. The Court concluded that the High Court was justified in repelling this plea.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the constitutionality and reasonableness of the impugned provisions. The Court emphasized the need to protect the tribals from exploitation and to restore their lands. The presumption under Section 3(1)(b) was deemed valid, and the term "land" was interpreted comprehensively to include structures. The Court's decision aimed to ensure the welfare of the tribals and prevent further exploitation by non-tribals.