Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.L.VAIDYA, NARASIMHAM
Gone Rajasimha Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 02-24-72
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FIFTH SCHEDULE - REGULATION MAKING POWER OF GOVERNOR - VALIDITY - ABOLITION OF MUTTAS AND MAHALS - WHETHER WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE GOVERNOR - ARTICLE 244 (1) - PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE FIFTH SCHEDULE - SECTIONS 92 (2) OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN RYOTS BELONGING TO SCHEDULED TRIBES AND RYOTS NOT BELONGING TO SCHEDULED TRIBES - WHETHER REASONABLE - ARTICLE 19 (1) (F) OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER REGULATION IS FOR THE PROTECTION AND INTERESTS OF SCHEDULED TRIBES - ARTICLE 19 (5) OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER REGULATION IS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 19 (5) OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCHEDULE OF THE MAHALS REGULATION FIXING THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPENSATION - WHETHER ANOMALOUS.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions challenging the validity of Andhra Pradesh Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969, and Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation of 1969. Petitioners contend that the Governor did not have the authority to enact the regulations and that they violate various provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 14 and 19.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the regulations were within the competence of the Governor and were validly made. The court also held that the regulations did not violate Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Governor had the authority to enact the regulations. 2. Whether the regulations violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Governor had the authority to enact the regulations under paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. The court noted that the power to make regulations for the peace and good Government of a scheduled area is very wide and is not limited to the subjects specified in clauses a, b, and c of sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 5. The court also noted that the Governor had consulted the Tribal Advisory Council before making the regulations, as required by sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 5. 2. The court held that the regulations did not violate Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution. The court held that the classification between ryots belonging to scheduled tribes and ryots not belonging to scheduled tribes was reasonable and that the regulation was for the protection and interests of scheduled tribes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions.
( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 347/71 is filed by five petitioners three being the properties of Albaka and Cherla estates and petitioners 4 and 5 being the properties of Sarangapani and Dandupeta free-hold villages. These petitioners challenge the validity of Andhra Pradesh Mahals ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Regulation, 1969, ( hereinafter referred to as the Mahals Regulation ). The petitioners in writ petition No. 357/71 are the Muttadars of certain Muttas in Yellavaram taluk of East Godavari District. The 24 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 358 of 1971 are also Muttadars of different villages in Ramapachodavaram taluk East Godavari District, whereas the petitioner in writ petition No. 1200 of 1971 is a muttadar of six villages in Yellavaram taluk of East Godavari District. The Muttadars aforementioned have challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Regulation of 1969 ( hereinafter referred to as the Muttas Regulation.)
( 2 ) BOTH the aforesaid regulations have been made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh with the assent of the President in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-paragraph 2 of the paragraph 5 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners in al the writ petitions have challenged the authority of the Governor in passing the aforesaid two regulations. We will first consider the question so far as the validity of the two regulations, relating to the powers of the Governor, together. Some other questions have been raised in the individual writ petitions to which we will advert at the proper stage.
( 3 ) DETAILED arguments, as to the validity of the Muttas regulation, which would also apply to the Mahals Regulation, were advanced by Sri Dhanurbhandu learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition No. 357 of 1971. His main contention is that there is no specific power given to the Governor either for abolition of the Muttas or Mahals. Unless a specific power is given the Governor is not competent to enact the aforesaid regulations. His contention is that under Article 244 of the Constitution, the provisions of 5th Schedule, under which the two regulations have been made, apply to the administration and control of the scheduled areas and scheduled tribes and does not give any power to the Governor to pass regulations of the nature, as they are outside the ambit of the expression " administration and control " of the scheduled areas and scheduled tribes used in Article 244 of the Constitution. He further contends that under sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 5 of the fifth schedule of the Constitution, under which the regulations have been made, the power of the Government to make regulations for the peace and good Government of any areas in the State, which is for the time being schedule area is limited to clauses a, b and c of sub-paragraph 2. In other words his contention is that though the first part of sub-paragraph 2 is wide in its terms, it is controlled by second para of sub-paragraph 2, in which clauses a, b and c occur.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel it is necessary to read the provisions of Article 244 (1) and also the relevant provisions of 5th Schedule of the Constitution. "art. 244 (1) : The provisions of the fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the scheduled areas and scheduled tribes in any State other than the State of Assam. "
( 5 ) THE fifth schedule consists of four parts. Part B deals with the administration and control of the scheduled areas and scheduled tribes. Paragraph 4 provides for the arrangement of a Tribal Advisory council and the duties of such council. Paragraph 5 which provides for making of laws or applying of laws to the scheduled areas, reads :"5. Law applicable to scheduled areas : (1 ). Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Governor may be public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.