Back
1988 Supreme(Gau) 35
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Guman Mal Lodha, J.M.Srivastava, JJ.
High Court, S/o.Jahan & 25 Others -Appellant
Versus
Assam Board of Revenue, Gauhati & Others. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 291 of 1988
Decided On : 10-03-1988
P.Prasad, M.A.Sheikh, B.Hussain, A.S.Choudhury
The provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, were enacted to provide protection to backward classes, including tribals, by ensuring sufficient land for their maintenance and preventing their exploitation.
Headnote:
TRIBAL BELT - ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1886 - CHAPTER X - PROTECTION OF BACKWARD CLASSES - TRIBAL BELT - TRANSFER OF LAND - VOID AB INITIO - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Board of Revenue confirming the order of the Settlement Officer, Sonitpur and Darrang, which declared that the land in question, situated in a Tribal Belt, could not be acquired or possessed by the petitioners due to the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, were enacted to provide protection to backward classes, including tribals, by ensuring sufficient land for their maintenance and preventing their exploitation. The court found that the land in question was situated in a Tribal Belt and that the petitioners had failed to prove that they were occupying the land prior to the constitution of the Tribal Belt. The court also held that the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the petitioners had not raised any objections regarding jurisdiction before the Board of Revenue.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question was situated in a Tribal Belt and, therefore, subject to the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 2. Whether the petitioners had proved that they were occupying the land prior to the constitution of the Tribal Belt. 3. Whether the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the land in question was situated in a Tribal Belt and that the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, were applicable. The court relied on the provisions of Sections 160, 161, and 162 of the Regulation, which provide for the constitution of Tribal Belts and the protection of backward classes in such areas. 2. The court found that the petitioners had failed to prove that they were occupying the land prior to the constitution of the Tribal Belt. The court relied on the findings of the Settlement Officer and the Board of Revenue, which had concluded that the petitioners had come to the area long after the creation of the Tribal Belt. 3. The court held that the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The court relied on Rule 4 of the Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which provides that the Settlement Officer would exercise the powers of Deputy Commissioner under these Rules. The court also found that the Settlement Officer had stated in his order that the current settlement operation was ongoing.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioners' arguments.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging, inter alia, the order of the Board of Revenue dated 15th February, 1988 confirming the order dated 26th November, 1986 passed by the Settlement Officer, Sonitpur and Darrang in Misc. Case No. 20/85-86. We have heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the relevant record, the Regulations and the Rules referred by him.
2. The controversy is about the land at village Medhipara, Mouza Barsila, Circle Odalguri, which is admittedly a Tribal Belt.
3. The petitioners' case is that though it is a Tribal Belt the land is in their occupation since 1940, much before the constitution of the Tribal Belt and, therefore, their cases are save in the enforcement of the provisions relating to providing protection to the tribals, as contained in Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
4. Before we proceed to discuss the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners we may mention that Chapter X provides protection of backward classes. Section 160 in terms starts with an enabling direction to tie State Govt. irrespective of the provision of any other law to adopt certain measures as it may deem fit for the protection of those classes who on account of their primitive condition and lack of education or material advantages are incapable of looking after their welfare in so far as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. Sub-clause (2) thereof authorises the State Govt. to specify the classes of such people by notification. Section 161 then enables the Govt. to constitute compact areas in regions predominantly peopled by the classes of people notified under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 160, into belts or blocks.
5. Section 162 (1) authorises the State Govt. that it may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to the areas, or any of the areas, constituted into belts or blocks, under the provisions of Section 161. Sub-section (2) of Section 162 is of great importance which an terms mentions that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, usage, contract or agreement no person shall acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any land in any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1). Obviously the rigour of sub-section (2) is that, for the purpose of protection of such backward classes, who on account of their primitive condition and lack of education cannot look after their welfare, in so far as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance in terms of Section 160, such lands would neither be alienable or transferable in any manner whatsoever. This provision expressly mentions inalienability of such land even by lease, agreement, settlement, transfer or exchange.
6. The object which is too patent is to make all transfers, exchanges, leases, agreements or settlements save as contemplated in Section 163 void ab initio and non-est in the eye of law so that no person can exploit the lack of education or the primitive condition of those backward classes by providing some attraction in getting the land transferred or by adopting any other method to deprive them of their only source of livelihood.
7. We would like to point out that Section 160 in terms mentions 'sufficient land' for their maintenance and provides protection for those classes, who are notified in sub-clause (2). Obviously the object and purpose of this law is to provide protection to the backward classes for whom the Constitution has been very jealous to carve out exceptions, in various fields, realising that those backward classes normally cannot withstand and compete with or can be matched against other people, who are more resourceful. We are, therefore, of the opinion t
