The classification of Tribals as a distinct class for the purpose of protecting their interests is reasonable and does not violate Article 14. The restrictions imposed by section 36-A on the transfer of occupancy of a tribal in favor of a non-tribal are reasonable and in the larger interest of the society, and thus do not violate Article 19(1)(f). The deprivation of property under section 36-A is not an acquisition for a public purpose and thus does not attract Article 31. Section 36-A does not violate Article 15(4) by creating a mini classification between backward classes.

JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Constitutionality of section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) is questioned in this batch of petitions.

2. The petitioners are all "non-Tribals" who have purchased occupancies from "the Tribals"-a term within the meaning of explanation to sub-section (4) of section 36 of the Code as amended by Act No. XXXV of 1974 (The Act) which was brought into force with effect from 6th July, 1974. All the transfers are subsequent to that date and are undisputedly in violation of section 36-A. The transactions are declared invalid on merits after enquiry. Though feeble attempt was made to challenge these orders there is nothing on record to justify interference under Article 226. What really survives is multi headed attack on section 36-A under Articles 14, 15(4), old Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 and new Article 300-A of the Constitution.

3. Section 36 before its amendment by the Act had put a restriction on transfer of occupancies belonging to certain declared Tribals in favour of non-Tribals. Previous sanction by Collector was a must and in its absence the transaction became voidable at the instance of a tribal who was given a right to apply within 2 years for restoration of land. Additional and more stringent restrictions were considered urgently necessary. Governor of the State promulgated the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 on 6th July, 1974 and to convert the said Ordinance into an Act a bill was introduced in the State Legislature setting out the following as its objects and Reasons :

"It was noticed that in a number of cases, particularly from Dhulia, Thana and certain other districts, lands previously held by persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes had gone into the hands of non-Tribals. In many of these cases, the transfers were found to have been in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or the Tenancy Laws in force in the State. It had, therefore, become necessary to provide for restoration of these lands to the original Tribal land-holders.

In order to prevent such transfers of land to non-Tribals it was also considered necessary to put more restrictions on the transfer of land from a Tribal to a non-Tribal holder, to provide that lands of Tribals shall not be auctioned but taken under the Management of the Collector and to extend the period of limitation in the case of Tribals for applications to set aside auction sales of immovable property. For this purpose, it was necessary to carry out suitable amendment to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

It was also proposed to provide that, no non-Tribal person should have the right to purchase under any of the Tenancy Laws in force in the State, any land belonging to a Tribal which may be duly leased to such non-Tribal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966."

The above bill was passed and this gave birth to the Act. It altered section 36, gave expanded meaning to the term "Scheduled Tribe" as found in the explanation to section 36(4) and added few provisions including section 36-A totally prohibiting certain transfers of occupancy of a tribal in favour of a non-tribal except with previous sanction of Collector and/or Collector with previous approval of the State Government (to be granted only in certain circumstances) and that too on an application by a non-tribal. Transfer in contravention of section 36-A(1) is made null and void, can be declared as such by the Collector suo motu or on application by a tribal. Upon such declaration the occupancy vests in the State Government and the vested property shall be disposed of in such manner as it may direct. Section 36-A(6) further provides that before disposal, a tribal-transferor is to be noticed requiring him to state within 90 days whether he is willing to purchase the same. The said Tribal is entitled to purchase for a prescribed consideration provided (i) he undertakes to cultivate the land pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document