SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 428

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
P. Rami Reddy and others, etc., Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and another etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2299 - 2300 of 1972, D/- 14-7-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. L. N. Sinha and S. Madhusudan Rao Sr. Advocates for Appellants; Mr. T. S. Krishnamurti Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. Ram Kumar and Mr. K. Ram Mohan Advocates with him for Respondents; Mr. Subodh Markandaya and Mrs. C. Markandaya Advocates for the Interveners.

Advocates:
C.MARKANDEV, K.RAM KUMAR, K.RAM MOHAN, L.N.Sinha, S.Madhusudan Rao, SUBODH MARKANDAYA, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER

Headnote:

Constitution of India Article 133(1)(a), 19(1)(f) – Challenge to the validity of provision*1 in so far as it prohibits the transfer of any immovable property situated in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh by a non-tribal in favour of another non-tribal having been repelled by the High Court upon testing on the touchstone of constitutionality, the present appeals*2 have been preferred by some of the unsuccessful Original Writ Petitioners – Some others have intervened upon their application for leave to intervene having been granted by this court – Appellants and the interveners have by and large reiterated the same contentions before this Court in support of their plea that the impugned provision is unconstitutional as being violative –Held, Secondly, to interpret the expression land in its narrow sense is to render the benevolent provisions impotent and ineffective – In that event the prohibition can be easily circumvented by just raising a farm house or a structure on the land – Impugned provisions were inserted by the Amending Regulation precisely to plug such loopholes and make the law really effective – High Court was perfectly justified in repelling this meritless plea – It is therefor not possible to accede to this submission – Equally meritless in the submission that the presumption embodied is unreasonable – High Court has unhesitatingly negatived this plea – High Court has reasoned –"With regard to the presumption, which is impugned, it is a rebuttable presumption and a rule of evidence – non-tribals who have acquired the lands, and properties of the tribals would be reasonably expected to disclose their title to the properties – This also accords with the rule of evidence, that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him vide Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – Tribals are mostly ignorant persons, and naturally suffer from inevitable handicaps in the matter of setting up or proving their rights to lands, and property which they had lost." – Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

THAKKAR, J. : - A challenge to the validity of provision*1 in so far as it prohibits the transfer of any immovable property situated in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh by a non-tribal in favour of another non-tribal having been repelled by the High Court upon testing on the touchstone of constitutionality, the present appeals*2 have been preferred by some of the unsuccessful Original Writ Petitioners. Some others have intervened upon their application for leave to intervene having been granted by this court.

* 1. Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as inserted by Regulation I of 1970. (Reproduced at page 1629 - Footnote).

* 2. By a Certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

2. The appellants and the interveners have by and large reiterated the same contentions before this Court in support of their plea that the impugned provision is unconstitutional as being violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India as it obtained at the material time till its repeal by the 44th Amendment in 1979 with effect from June 20, 1979.

3. A short history of the legislation may be briefly traced to the extent considered necessary. In the Andhra Area there existed before the inauguration of the Constitution, certain laws including the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917 which inter alia prohibited transfer of land in the Agency Tract areas except in favour of members of hill tribes conferring upon the persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes certain benefits. After the Constitution of India came into force, Art. 244 of the Constitution and the Fifth Schedule were made applicable to the administration of the scheduled areas. Para 6 of the Fifth Schedule empowered the President to notify the scheduled areas in consultation with the Governor of the State. The scheduled areas in Andhra region of this State were notified by the President through the Scheduled Area (Para A States) Order, 1950. Para 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule empowered the Governor of the State to make Regulations for the peace and good Government of the Scheduled Areas. Accordingly, the Governor made the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation I of 1959). This Regulation came into force with effect from 4-3-1959. Section 3(1) of this Regulation 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 Government or subject to rules made in this behalf, with the previous consent in writing of the Agent or of any prescribed officer. Similar laws designed to protect the tribals from exploitation were in operation in the Telengana area of the then State of Hyderabad. In exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2)(a) of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution the Governor enacted the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Laws (Extension and Amendment) Regulations, 1963 whereby certain rules and regulations which already existed and were in operation in the Andhra area of the State were extended to all parts of the State. The result was that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations came to be extended to the Telengana area of the State as well.

4. Under the 1959 Regulation, any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency Tracts, by a member of a Scheduled Tribe was declared null and void unless, made in favour of any other member of a Scheduled Tribe or a registered co-operative society composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes or with the previous consent in writing of the Agent. The said Regulation further empowered the Agent to decree an ejectment against any person in possession of any immovable property, the transfer of which was made in contravention of its provisions and to restore it back to the transferor or his heirs. If the transferor or his heirs were not willing to take the property or where their whereabouts are not known, the Agent

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top