Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar: Kalu Gopya Banjari vs State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1984 Supreme(SC) 350

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY; A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.
Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4384 and 3288 of 1984, D/- 4-12-1984.
AND
Kalu Gopya Banjari, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.

Advocates:
M.N.SHROFF, V.B.JOSHI, V.S.DESAI

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 19(1)(f), 31, 46, 31-B, 254(1), 15(4), 16(4), 19(1)(d)(e), 330, 275, 343(2), 22(1) - Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 - Section 3, 4, 2(1)(j), 3(1), 3(1)(ii), 3(4)(b), 6 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 73, 36, 36(2) Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 - Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1976 - Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970 - Section 20 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Scheduled Tribes - Tribal - Land - Registered Sale Deed - Possession - Restoration of Lands - Appellant had by a registered sale deed purchased agricultural land bearing having an area of 20 acres 39 gunthas from father of respondent No. 2 who being a gond was a tribal for a consideration of Rs. 1300/- with prior permission of Collector and was placed in possession thereof - Suo motu proceedings were started by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura in District for restoration of lands to respondent No. 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer initiated an inquiry, summoned parties and recorded their statements - By his order he held that it was admitted by appellant that his transferor Raju Meshram was a gond and therefore a tribal, that no improvements had been made by him on land and that there were no encumbrances - Whether by way of sale, gift, mortgage or any other disposition made or had gone into possession of members not belonging to Scheduled Tribes under a decree or order - Whether provisions of Ss. 2, 3 and 4 of impugned Act were repugnant to "existing law" such as Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also to a law made by Parliament - Whether by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or lease or any other disposition made inter vivos - Whether in view of all this evidence and failure of earlier laws to give relief to borrowers, could a Legislature – Held, There is very little that Court can do in matter and it is for Bar to take it up elsewhere - A person enrolled as an advocate under Advocates Act is not ipso facto entitled to a right of audience in all Courts unless S. 30 of that Act is first brought into force - That is a matter which is still regulated by different statutes and extent of right to practise must depend on terms of those statutes - That brings us to second aspect of matter i.e. so-called right of a litigant to be represented before Collector in matters not covered by Ss. 3(1) and 4 of Act - Now it is well-settled that apart from provisions of Art. 22(1) of Constitution, no litigant has a fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer in any Court - Only fundamental right recognized by Constitution is that under Art. 22(1) by which an accused who is arrested and detained in custody is entitled to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice - In all other matters i.e. in suits or other proceedings in which accused is not arrested and detained on a criminal charge, litigant has no fundamental right to be represented by a legal practitioner - For aught court know, legislature felt that for implementation of legislation, it would not subserve public interest if lawyers were allowed to appear, plead or act on behalf of non-tribal transferees - It cannot be denied that a tribal and a non-tribal are unequally placed and non-tribal transferee being a person belonging to the more affluent class, would unnecessarily protract proceedings before Collector under Ss. 3(1) and 4 of Act by raising all kinds of pleas calculated to delay or defeat rights of tribal for restoration of his lands - Proceedings before Collector have to be completed with sufficient despatch and transferred lands restored to a tribal under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 and S. 4 of Act without any of laws delays - Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The legislation in question, the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, is a remedial measure aimed at protecting the rights of Scheduled Tribes against exploitative land transfers. It seeks to restore lands transferred from tribal members to non-tribals during a specified period, considering the historical context of exploitation and inequality (!) (!) .
The Act is placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, thereby enjoying protection from challenge on the grounds of constitutional inconsistency, particularly concerning fundamental rights such as equality, property, and freedom of practice (!) (!) .
The legislative history indicates that the Act was enacted to address the inadequacy of existing land laws in protecting tribal landholders. It was motivated by the need to rectify past injustices caused by unequal and unconscionable transactions, often driven by poverty, ignorance, and exploitation (!) (!) .
The Act's provisions authorize the Collector to suo motu or upon application initiate proceedings for the annulment of transfers made by tribal members to non-tribals within the specified period. It provides detailed mechanisms for restoring lands, including valuation of improvements, payment of compensation, and conditions for possession restoration (!) (!) .
The legislation is justified on the grounds of distributive justice, aiming to rectify economic and social inequalities faced by tribal communities. It emphasizes the importance of protecting vulnerable groups from exploitation and restoring their land rights, which are closely linked to their culture and livelihood (!) (!) .
The law relates specifically to transfers and alienations of agricultural land by members of Scheduled Tribes and falls within the legislative competence granted by the Constitution’s Entry 18 of List II. It does not encroach upon the Union's powers under Entries 6 and 7 of List III, as it deals with restrictions on land transfer and alienation, including the reopening of such transactions (!) (!) (!) .
The Act's retrospective application, establishing a cut-off date, is rational and has a reasonable nexus with its objectives. The date was chosen based on historical land reforms and legal frameworks relevant to land transactions involving tribals (!) (!) .
The differentiation in treatment between various classes of non-tribal transferees, such as those who diverted land to non-agricultural purposes versus those who continued agricultural use, is considered reasonable and based on policy considerations. The law aims to prevent unjust enrichment and protect tribal land rights (!) (!) .
The Act's placement in the Ninth Schedule shields it from constitutional challenges related to fundamental rights, including equality and property rights, under Article 31-B (!) .
The restriction on advocates' rights to practice under the Act, specifically the prohibition of legal practitioners appearing before certain authorities, is upheld as constitutionally valid. The legislation's design aims to facilitate swift proceedings and prevent delays caused by legal representation, especially given the vulnerable status of tribal claimants (!) (!) (!) .
The law does not violate the right to legal representation or the fundamental rights of litigants, as the right to legal counsel is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions for public interest and administrative efficiency (!) (!) .
Overall, the legislation is viewed as a legitimate exercise of the State's legislative powers, consistent with constitutional provisions, and aimed at achieving social justice and protecting the rights of marginalized tribal communities (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice.

Judgment

A. P. SEN, J.:- These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments and orders of a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated June 21 and 27, 1984 and raise a common question relating to the constitutional validity of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The question is whether Ss. 3 and 4 of the impugned Act which provided for annulment of transfers made by members of Scheduled Tribes and for restoration of lands to them on certain conditions were ultra vires the State Legislature as being beyond the purview of Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule or were otherwise violative of Art. 14, Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31 of the Constitution.

2. Facts in these two appeals are more or less similar. In Civil Appeal No. 4384 of 1984, the appellant Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar had by a registered sale deed dated November 30, 1965 purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 27 having an area of 20 acres 39 gunthas from Raju Meshram, father of respondent No. 2 Sonerab Raju Meshram who being a gond was a tribal within the meaning of S. 2(1)(j) of the Act for a consideration of Rs. 1300/- with the prior permission of the Collector as required by S. 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and was placed in possession thereof. Suo motu proceedings were started by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura in District Chandrapur under S. 3(1) of the Act for restoration of the lands to respondent No. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer initiated an inquiry, summoned the parties and recorded their statements. By his order dated February 19, 1977 he held that it was admitted by the appellant that his transferor Raju Meshram was a gond and therefore a tribal under S. 2(1)(j) of the Act, that no improvements had been made by him on the land and that there were no encumbrances thereon. He therefore held that the case falls within S. 3(1) of the Act and recorded that respondent No. 2 Sonerao Raju Meshram, the tribal, 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 to the appellant. He accordingly directed in exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 3(1)(ii) of the Act that possession of an area of 19 acres 19 gunthas out of Survey No. 27 be taken from the appellant and restored to respondent No.. 2 on payment of Rs. 461.76p. towards the consideration equal to 48 times of the assessment as required by S. 3(4)(b) after setting apart a part of the remaining portion of 1 acre 20 gunthas covered by a dwelling house. The appellant preferred an appeal under S. 6 of the Act to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur but a single Member of the Tribunal by his order dated August 5, 1977 upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court assailing the orders of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal as well as that of the Sub-Divisional Officer. A learned Single Judge by his order dated March 13, 1984 dismissed the writ petition in limine and a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by a Division Bench by its order dated June 27, 1984. Facts in Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1984 are more or less similar. We must here mention that the High Court in Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra being Special Civil Appln. No. 1064 of 1976 decided on June 20, 1976 upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and Civil Appeal No. 982/76 is pending before this Court.

3. The impugned Act is supplemental or incidental to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the relevant tenancy laws viz. the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 in relation to the Vidarbha region of the State, the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in relation to the Hyderabad region of the State and the Bombay Tenancy &

Click Here to Read the rest of this document