{"id":66162,"date":"1988-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988"},"modified":"2015-10-16T01:55:23","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T20:25:23","slug":"p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988","title":{"rendered":"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1626, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 443<\/div>\n
Author: M Thakkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.RAMI REDDY & ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/07\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1626\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 443\n 1988 SCC  (3) 433\t  JT 1988 (3)\t 47\n 1988 SCALE  (2)8\n\n\nACT:\n     Andhra   Pradesh\t Scheduled   Areas   Land   Transfer\nRegulation, 1959 (Regulation I of 1959) made by the Governor\nunder para  5(2) of  Fifth Schedule  to the  Constitution of\nIndia-Sec.3(1)-As substituted  by Andhra  Pradesh  Scheduled\nAreas Land Transfer (Amendment) Regulation, 1970 (Regulation\nI of  1970)-Interpretation of-Sec.  3(1) in  so\t far  as  it\nprohibits  transfer   of  immovable   property\tsituated  in\nscheduled areas\t by a  'non-tribal' to another 'non-tribal'-\nWhether constitutionally  invalid being violative of Article\n19(1)(f) as it obtained at the relevant time till its repeal\nby the\tConstitution (Forty-fourth  Amendment) in  1979-Held\nConstitutionally valid.\n     Constitution of India-Fifth Schedule-Paragraph 5(2)(a)-\nExpression \"Land\"-Scope\t of-Whether used  in  narrow  sense-\nHeld-Expression land is comprehensive-Wide enough to include\nstructures raised thereon.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land\nTransfer Regulation  1959 (Regulation  I of 1959) prohibited\ntransfer of  immovable properties  situated in the scheduled\nareas from  a  member  of  scheduled  tribe  to\t non-tribals\nwithout previous  sanction of the State Government. In order\nto  facilitate\t effective  enforcement\t of  the  said\t1959\nregulations,  the   Andhra  Pradesh   Scheduled\t Areas\tLand\nTransfer  (Amendment)\tRegulation,  1970   was\t introduced.\nRegulation 1970\t inter alia  brought the  following  changes\nnamely (i) transfers of land in scheduled areas in favour of\n'non-tribals' were wholly prohibited in future and (ii) non-\ntribals holding lands in the scheduled areas were prohibited\nfrom transferring  their lands\tin favour  of persons  other\nthan  tribals.\t The  appellants  who  owned  lands  in\t the\nscheduled areas\t having acquired them from tribals and 'non-\ntribals' were  affected by this amending Regulation of 1970.\nThey filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging this\nregulation being  unconstitutional. The High Court dismissed\nthe writ petitions. Hence these appeals by Certificate under\nArticle 133(1)(a)  of the  Constitution. The main contention\nof the\tappellants was\tthat the  impugned  provisions\twere\nunconstitutional as  being violative  of Article 19(1)(f) of\nthe Constitution as it obtained at the\n444\nmaterial time  till it\twas  repealed  by  the\tConstitution\n(Forty-fourth)\tAmendment   in\t1979  because  they  imposed\nunreasonable  restrictions  on\tthe  non-tribal\t holders  of\nproperties in  the scheduled  areas. Dismissing\t the appeals\nand while  tracing a  short history of the legislation, this\nCourt,\n^\n     HELD: originally  all the\tlands in  these tracts\twere\nowned by the 'tribals'. With the advent of the 'non-tribals'\nin the\tlate 19th  Century and early 20th Century, the lands\nchanged hands  from 'tribals'  to 'non-tribals'. This change\nof ownership  was a  result of\texploitation raising: (1) In\nthe context  of money  lending operations  and\t(2)  in\t the\ncontext of dubious and unconscionable dealings in the course\nof trade.  The 'non-tribals'  had so  often circumvented the\nlegislation enacted  in order  to protect  the 'tribals'  by\nrecourse to  benami transactions  and by recourse to dubious\ndevices. The  poor ignorant, illiterate, and unsophisticated\ntribals had  succumbed to  the\twiles  of  the\teconomically\nstronger and unscrupulous 'non-tribals'. A legislation which\nin  essence   and  substance  aims  at\trestoration  to\t the\n'tribals' of  the lands\t which originally  belonged  to\t the\n'tribals' but  which passed  into the hands of 'non-tribals'\nin   the    aforesaid\tbackground   certainly\t cannot\t  be\ncharacterised as unreasonable. [455G-H; 456A-C]\n     No\t unreasonableness   is\tinvolved   in\tmaking\t the\nprohibition against  transfer to 'non-tribals' applicable to\nboth the  'tribal' as  also to the 'non-tribal' owner in the\nscheduled area.\t As a  matter of  fact it  would  have\tbeen\nunreasonable to\t do otherwise. In the absence of protection,\nthe economically  stronger 'non-tribals'  would in course of\ntime devour  all the  available Lands  and wipe out the very\nidentity of the tribals who cannot survive in the absence of\nthe only source of livelihood they presently have. [457C-D]\n     The   submission\t that\tthe    prohibition   against\ntransferring  the   properties\tto  'non-tribals'  being  in\nabsolute terms,\t a non-tribal'\tcannot even  raise a loan on\nhis properties\teven in\t the event of the 'non-tribal' being\nunder economic\tcompulsion to  do so cannot be acceded to as\nit overlooks the amendment introduced by Sec. 3A(1) inserted\nby Regulation 1 of 1971. [458A-B]\n     Tribes of\tIndia The  Struggle  for  Survival  (1982-83\nedition) by Christoph von Furer-Haimendorf; The Continent of\nCirce, [1965] by Nirad C. Chaudhari; Manchegowda and Ors. v.\nState of  Karnataka,  [1984]  3\t SCC  p.  301  and  Lingappa\nRochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra.<\/a> [1985] 1 SCC 479,\nreferred to.\n445\n     The argument  that the  expression 'Iand' has been used\nin its\trestricted sense  in paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule V\nto the\tConstitution of\t India and  therefore  the  impugned\nprovisions prohibiting\tthe transfer  of  lands\t along\twith\nstructures thereon  by employing  the expression  'immovable\nproperty' is  not in  accordance with law is devoid of merit\nfor two reasons: firstly, there is no reason to believe that\n`land' has  not\t been  employed\t in  its  legal\t sense.\t The\nexpression 'land'  in its  legal sense\tis  a  comprehensive\nexpression which  is wide  enough to  include structures, if\nany, raised thereon and secondly to interpret the expression\n'land' in  its narrow  sense is\t to  render  the  benevolent\nprovisions impotent  and  ineffective.\tIn  that  event\t the\nprohibition can\t be easily  circumvented by  just raising  a\nfarm  house  or\t a  structure  on  the\tland.  The  impugned\nprovisions  were   inserted  by\t  the  Amending\t  Regulation\nprecisely to  plug such\t loopholes and\tmake the  law really\neffective. [.158C-D; 459D-E]\n     The Dictionary of English Law, [19591 Edition Vol. 2 p.\n1053 by\t Earl Jowitt;  Words and Phrases Judicially Defined,\nBy Roland  Burrows-Vol.IlI 1944\t Edition p.  206 and The Law\nLexicon, By  p. Ramanatha Aiyar-Reprint Edition 1987-p. 700,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 2299-
\n2300 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and order dated the 24.9.1971 of the
\nAndhra Pradesh\tHigh Court  in Writ Petition Nos. 806 & 3161
\nof 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     L.N. Sinha and S. Madhusudan Rao for the Appellants.
\n     T.S. Krishnamurthi\t Iyer, K. Ram Kumar and K. Ram Mohan
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Subodh  Markandaya\t and  Mrs.  C.\tMarkandaya  for\t the
\ninterveners.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     THAKKAR, J. A challenge to the validity of a provision’
\nin so  far as  it prohibits  the transfer  of any  immovable
\nproperty situated  in the  scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh
\nby a  ‘non-tribal’ in  favour of another ‘non-tribal’ having
\nbeen repelled by the High Court upon\n<\/p>\n
1. Section  3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled. Areas Land
\nTransfer Regulation,  1959 as  inserted by  Regulation I  of
\n1970. (Reproduced at page 6-Footnote 3).\n<\/p>\n
446<\/span><\/p>\n
testing on  the touchstone of constitutionality, the present
\nappeals have  been preferred  by some  of  the\tunsuccessful
\noriginal Writ  Petitioners. Some others have intervened upon
\ntheir application for leave to intervene having been granted
\nby this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  and the  interveners have\tby and large
\nreiterated 13  the same\t contentions before  this  Court  in
\nsupport\t of  their  plea  that\tthe  impugned  provision  is
\nunconstitutional as  being violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the
\nConstitution of\t India as  it obtained\tat the material time
\ntill its repeal by the 44th Amendment in 19793.\n<\/p>\n
     A short  history of  the  legislation  may\t be  briefly
\ntraced to  the extent  considered necessary.  In the  Andhra
\nArea  there   existed  before\tthe  inauguration   of\t the
\nConstitution,  certain\tlaws  including\t the  Agency  Tracts
\nInterest and  Land  Transfer  Act,  1917  which\t inter\talia
\nprohibited transfer of land in the Agency Tract areas except
\nin favour  of members  of hill\ttribes conferring  upon\t the
\npersons belonging  to the Scheduled Tribes certain benefits.
\nAfter the Constitution of India came into force, Art. 244 of
\nthe Constitution and the Fifth Schedule were made applicable
\nto the\tadministration of the scheduled areas. Para 6 of the
\nFifth  Schedule\t  empowered  the  President  to\t notify\t the
\nScheduled areas\t in consultation  with the  Governor of\t the
\nState. The  scheduled areas  in Andhra\tregion of this State
\nwere notified  by the  President through  the Scheduled Area
\n(Part ‘A’  States) order,  1950.  Para\t5(2)  of  the  Fifth
\nSchedule  empowered  the  Governor  of\tthe  State  to\tmake
\nRegulations  for  the  peace  and  good\t Government  of\t the
\nSchedule Areas.\t Accordingly, the  Governor  made  the\tA.P.
\nScheduled Areas\t Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, (Regulation
\nI of 1959). This Regulation came into force with effect from
\n4.3.1959.  Section   3(1)  of\tthis  Regulation  prohibited
\ntransfer of  immovable properties  situated in the scheduled
\nareas from  a member  of scheduled  tribes  to\tnon  tribals
\nwithout previous sanction of the State Government or subject
\nto rules  made in  this behalf, with the previous consent in
\nwriting of  the Agent  or of any prescribed officer. Similar
\nlaws designed  to protect the tribals from exploitation were
\nin operation  in the  Telengana area  of the  then State  of
\nHyderabad. In  exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2)(a) of
\nFifth Schedule\tof the Constitution the Governor enacted the
\nAndhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Laws (Extension and Amendment)
\nRegulations, 1963  whereby  certain  rules  and\t regulations
\nwhich already  existed, and  were in operation in the Andhra
\narea of the State were\n<\/p>\n
2.  By\t a  Certificate\t  under\t Art.\t133(  l)(a)  of\t the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
3. With effect from June 20. 1979.\n<\/p>\n
447<\/span><\/p>\n
extended to  all parts of the State. The result was that the
\nAndhra Pradesh\tScheduled Areas\t Land  Transfer\t Regulations
\ncame to\t be extended  to the  Telengana area of the State as
\nwell.\n<\/p>\n
     Under the\t1959 Regulation,  any transfer\tof immovable
\nproperty situated  in the  Agency Tracts,  by a\t member of a
\nScheduled Tribe\t was declared  null and void unless, made in
\nfavour of  any other  member  of  a  Scheduled\tTribe  or  a
\nregistered cooperative society composed solely of members of
\nthe Scheduled Tribes or with the.previous consent in writing
\nof the\tAgent. The  said Regulation  further  empowered\t the
\nAgent  to   decree  an\t ejectment  against  any  person  in
\npossession of  any immovable property, the transfer of which
\nwas made  in contravention  of its provisions and to restore
\nit back to the transferor or his heirs. If the transferor or
\nhis heirs  were not  willing to\t take the  property or where
\ntheir whereabouts  are not  known?  the\t Agent\twas  further
\nempowered to order assignment or sale of the property to any
\nother  member\tof  a\tScheduled  Tribe   or  a  registered
\ncooperative  society  composed\tsolely\tof  members  of\t the
\nScheduled Tribes  or otherwise dispose of it, as if it was a
\nproperty at the disposal of the State Government
\n     However,  as   difficulties  were\texperienced  by\t the
\nGovernment in  implementing the\t ejectment procedures  under
\nthe said  Regulation, inasmuch as it was not always easy for
\nthe concerned authority to ascertain the origin of the right
\nunder  which  the  non-tribal  is  claiming  possession\t and
\nwhether the  land now  under the  possession of a non tribal
\nwas previously\tacquired from a tribal or not, the said 1959
\nRegulation was amended by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas
\nLand Transfer  (Amendment) Regulation,\t1970 with  a view to
\nremedy the said mischief. The amending Regulation of 1970 in
\norder to  facilitate effective\tenforcement of the said 1959
\nRegulations introduced\tinteralia,  the\t following  changes,
\nnamely:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) A rule of presumption was introduced to the effect
\n\t  that unless  the contrary  is proved, where a non-
\n\t  tribal is  in possession  of land in the Scheduled
\n\t  areas, he  or his  predecessors-in-interest, shall
\n\t  be deemed  to have  acquired it  through  transfer
\n\t  from a tribal;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Transfers  of land in Scheduled Areas in favour of
\n\t  non-tribals shall be wholly prohibited in future;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii) Non-tribals holding lands in the Scheduled Areas
\n\t  shall be  prohibited from transferring their lands
\n\t  in favour of persons
\n448<\/span>
\n\t  other than tribals. Only partitions and devolution
\n\t  by succession\t of lands  held\t by  them  shall  be
\n\t  permitted; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iv) Where  a tribal  or non-tribal is unable
\n\t  to sell  his land to a tribal on reasonable terms,
\n\t  it shall  be open  to him to surrender the land to
\n\t  Government  who  shall  thereupon  be\t obliged  to
\n\t  acquire it on payment of appropriate compensation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Clause (a)\t of substituted\t section 3(1)3\trendered all
\nthe transfers made except those in favour of a tribal, to be
\nnull and  void. Clause\t(b) of\tsub-section (1) of Section 3
\nraises\ta   presumption\t that\tany  immovable\tproperty  in
\npossession with\t a non-tribal would be presumed to have been
\nacquired by such person through a tribal. Clause (c) of sub-
\nsection\t (1)   of  Section   3\tprovides   for\tpayment\t  of
\ncompensation to\t the non-tribal\t at the\t rate  specified  in
\nSection\t 10   of  Andhra  Pradesh  Ceiling  on\tAgricultural
\nHoldings Act, 1961. The Andhra Pradesh
\nSec. 3\t (1)(a)\t Notwithstanding anything  in any  enactment
\n\t       rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any
\n\t       transfer of  immovable property\tsituated  in
\n\t       the Agency tracts by a person, whether or not
\n\t       such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe,
\n\t       shall be\t absolutely null  and  void,  unless
\n\t       such transfer  is made  in favour  of person,
\n\t       who is  a member\t of a  Scheduled Tribe\tor a
\n\t       society registered or deemed to be registered
\n\t       under  the   Andhra  Pradesh   Co   operative
\n\t       Societies Act,  1964 (Act 7 of 1964) which is
\n\t       composed solely\tof members  of the Scheduled
\n\t       Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
\t   (b)\tUntil the  contrary is proved, any immovable
\n\t       property situated in the Agency tracts and in
\n\t       the possession  of a  person  who  is  not  a
\n\t       member of  Scheduled Tribe. shall be presumed
\n\t       to  have\t been  acquired\t by  person  or\t his
\n\t       predecessor in  possession through a transfer
\n\t       made to him by a member of a Scheduled Tribe.\n<\/p>\n
\t   (c) Where a person intending to sell his land is
\n\t       not able\t to effect  such sale,\tby reason of
\n\t       the fact\t that no member of a Scheduled Tribe
\n\t       is willing to purchase the land or is willing
\n\t       to purchase  the land on the terms offered by
\n\t       such person,  then such\tperson may  apply to
\n\t       the Agent,  the Agency  Divisional officer or
\n\t       any  other   prescribed\t officer   for\t the
\n\t       acquisition  of\t such  land   by  the  State
\n\t       Government, and\tthe Agent. Agency Divisional
\n\t       officer or  the prescribed  officer,  as\t the
\n\t       case may\t be by order, take over such land on
\n\t       payment of  compensation in  accordance\twith
\n\t       the principles specified in Section 10 of the
\n\t       Andhra  Pradesh\t Ceiling   on\tAgricultural
\n\t       Holdings Act,  1961, (Act,  X of\t 1961),\t and
\n\t       such land  shall thereupon  vest in the State
\n\t       Government free\tfrom  all  encumbrances\t and
\n\t       shall be\t disposed of in favour of members of
\n\t       the Scheduled  Tribes or a society registered
\n\t       or deemed  to be\t registered under the Andhra
\n\t       Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act
\n\t       7 of  1964 composed  solely of members of the
\n\t       Scheduled Tribes\t or in such other manner and
\n\t       subject\tto   such  conditions\tas  may\t  be
\n\t       prescribed.]
\n449<\/span>
\nRegulation No.\t1 of 1970 inserts sub-section (4) in Section
\n3 whereby  ‘transfer’ has  been defined to include a sale in
\nexecution of  a decree\tincluding a  benami transaction. The
\nonly species  of transfer  which has  been excluded from the
\noperation of  the regulation  is petition  or devolution  by
\nsuccession. Provision  has been\t made for  the ejectment  of
\npersons who  came into\tpossession of such lands as a result
\nof such\t transfers and\tfor the\t restoration of\t land to the
\noriginal transferor  or his  heirs. By\tRegulation 1 of 1971
\nSection\t 3-A  was  introduced  whereby\ta  mortgage  without
\npossession in  favour of  a Bank  or institution approved by
\nthe Government\twas permitted subject to certain conditions.
\nThe Governor further framed a regulation to amend the Andhra
\nPradesh Scheduled  Areas  Land\tTransfer  Regulation,  1959,
\nbeing A.P.  Regulation No.  1 of  1978 which came into force
\nwith effect  from October 24, 1978. Regulation No. I of 1978
\ninserted  sections  3-B\t and  6-A.  Section  6-B  prohibited
\nregistration of documents of transfer while sections 6-A and
\n6-B respectively  provided for\tpunishment for acquiring any
\nimmovable property  after a decree for ejectment was passed.
\nThe punishment\tis to the extent of rigorous imprisonment of
\none year  or fine of Rs.2000 or both. Section 6-B makes such
\nan offence cognizable.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants own lands, and have immovable properties
\nin the\tScheduled areas\t of Andhra  Pradesh, and  have\tbeen
\ncultivating their  lands for  the past\tmany years.  Some of
\nthem have  acquired these lands in the remote past, and some
\nin the\trecent past  by purchase, some from the tribals, and
\nsome from  the non-tribals. By the amending Regulation which
\nis now\timpugned, all  acquisitions of immovable property by
\ntransfer from  tribals? and  non-tribals alike, are declared
\nnull and  void. The  appellants are all non-tribals, and are
\naffected by this amending Regulation. Some of them belong to
\nthe Scheduled areas in the Telengana region, and some of the
\nScheduled areas\t in the\t Andhra region.\t But,  they  have  a
\ncommon grievance  that the  Regulation cuts  at the  root of
\ntheir right  to the immovable properties, which have been in
\ntheir possession for the past many years.\n<\/p>\n
     The principal  plea of the appellants before this Court
\nis that in so far as the impugned provision seeks to control
\nor restrict the right of transfer of immovable property by a
\n‘non-tribal’ person  it is  void and that the High Court has
\nerred in holding otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
     Be it  realized that  the question\t whether or  not the
\nimpugned  regulation   brought\tinto   force  in   1970\t has
\nretrospective operation as contended by the State or whether
\nit merely has a prospective operation as
\n450<\/span>
\nheld by\t the High  Court does  not fall for consideration in
\nthe present  group of appeals. This question has been raised
\nin another set of appeals which are awaiting decision before
\nthis Court.  We therefore do not deal with this dimension of
\nthe  issue   in\t the   present\tjudgment  and  refrain\tfrom
\nexpressing any opinion on this question.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  also be mentioned that the thoroughly untenable
\nplea unsuccessfully  advanced before the High Court that the
\nGovernment had\texceeded the power conferred by para 5(2) of
\nSchedule V  of the  Constitution was  not exercised  for the
\npeace and  good governance  of the  scheduled area,  has not
\nbeen reiterated\t before this  Court. This Court is therefore
\nnot required  to deal  with this  fact which has been fully,
\nadequately, and\t most satisfactorily  dealt with by the High
\nCourt which unhesitatingly turned down the plea.\n<\/p>\n
     The reasonableness\t or otherwise  of  the\trestrictions
\nimposed by  the impugned provision cannot be tested in void.
\nThe socio-economic  landscape in  the backdrop\tof which the
\ncompulsion to  legislate was  occasioned needs to be painted
\nto enable  the Court  to approach in a meaningful manner the
\nproblem posed by the challenge rooted in the submission that
\nthese restrictions  are unreasonable from the perspective of
\nArticle 19(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these
\nare not essential for the protection of the interests of the
\nScheduled Tribes. To this end the following picture emerging
\nfrom the  additional counter  filed by\tthe State drawn from
\nsources which  have rightly  been considered as authentic by
\nthe High Court deserves to be highlighted:\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t   Within  the scheduled areas of both Telengana and
\n\t  Andhra Pradesh  regions the  land was\t entirely in
\n\t  occupation of\t different Tribal  communities.\t The
\n\t  area was  an inaccessible tract of land covered by
\n\t  forests and  hills. These  tribal communities were
\n\t  in occupation\t of  lands  and\t lived\tby  shifting
\n\t  cultivation and  gathering   whatever produce that
\n\t  was available.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t   The non-tribals who arrived in these areas landed
\n\t  in the 19th Century in certain areas and the early
\n\t  10th Century\tin certain  other  areas  found\t the
\n\t  tribals who  were in\toccupation of these lands an
\n\t  easy prey  for the  schemes of  exploitation.\t The
\n\t  non-tribals  were  lending  money  to\t the  tribal
\n\t  communities and  taking the land belonging to them
\n\t  as security  though nothing  was taken  in writing
\n\t  from a  tribal.  The\trates  of  interest  charged
\n\t  ranged between  25 to\t 50 per\t cent and in certain
\n\t  cases even  100 per  cent. The  tribals  who\twere
\n\t  tradi
\n\t\t\t   VINEET
\n451<\/span>
\n\t  tionally honest  and\twho  were  simple  in  their
\n\t  thought and  habits  fell  an\t easy  prey  to\t the
\n\t  schemes of the non-tribals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t   None\t of these  money lenders  ever credited\t any
\n\t  amount paid  by the tribals towards their debt and
\n\t  whatever entries  were made  in the  books of\t the
\n\t  money lenders\t were  implicitly  believed  by\t the
\n\t  tribals. The\ttribals were  not  aware  that\twhen
\n\t  produce was  sold to\tthe non-tribals,  they\twere
\n\t  using a  larger weight  and a\t smaller weight\t was
\n\t  applied for  selling outside goods to the tribals.
\n\t  The indebtedness  of the tribal had taken the form
\n\t  of bonded  labour in\tmany cases.  The debt  could
\n\t  never be discharged by the tribals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  The money lenders continued to be in occupation of
\n\t  most of  the lands  and the  tribals became  their
\n\t  serfs. The non-tribals have also forcibly occupied
\n\t  some of  the lands.  The tribals were ignorant and
\n\t  they were  not aware that they could go and report
\n\t  to   the    concerned\t  authorities\t about\t the
\n\t  contravention of  the Regulations protecting their
\n\t  rights. The  non-tribals  have  been\ttaking\tfull
\n\t  advantage of\ttheir ignorance\t and exploited\tthem
\n\t  and are continuing to exploit them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t   There  were several\trebellious movements  in the
\n\t  Scheduled areas  against  the\t oppression  by\t the
\n\t  money\t   lenders    and    rapacious\t  landlords.
\n\t  Exploitation\tof  Tribals  was  a  cause  of\tmany
\n\t  disturbances\tsuch   as  Ramparebellion   in\tEast
\n\t  Godavari in  about 1899.  In comparatively  recent
\n\t  times\t also\tin  Adilabad  district\tthe  tribals
\n\t  rebelled in 1941 as a result of alienation of land
\n\t  and forest  reservation rules and even in 1967-68,
\n\t  most of  the tribals\tfell an easy prey to some of
\n\t  the political\t leaders who promised that the lands
\n\t  in Scheduled\tareas would  be restored to them and
\n\t  that the non-tribals would be driven out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t   It  is a known fact that these tribal communities
\n\t  joined hands\twith the  so called  revolutionaries
\n\t  and again there was an uprising in the tribal area
\n\t  against  the\t non-tribals   which   had   started
\n\t  spreading to the plains areas also.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t  The tribal communities which went into the grip of
\n\t  revolutionaries  were\t  not  able   to   extricate
\n\t  themselves out of their grip. It is only after the
\n\t  tribals were\tpromised by  the Government that the
\n\t  land would be restored to them and the exploi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
452<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  tation by  non-tribals would\tbe checked and after
\n\t  arresting the\t several revolutionaries  peace\t has
\n\t  prevailed in several parts of the scheduled areas.
\n\t  If the  Scheduled Tribes  were  not  put  back  in
\n\t  possession of the land and measures were not taken
\n\t  to prevent exploitation by non-tribals peace would
\n\t  not have prevailed in the Scheduled Areas.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.\t  It was  observed by  several committees  that\t the
\n\t  non-tribals were  able to  find ways\tand means to
\n\t  circumvent the  provisions of Regulation I of 1959
\n\t  by entering  into benami  trans actions  and other
\n\t  clandestine  transactions   with   unsophisticated
\n\t  tribals. It  is  absolutely  necessary  to  create
\n\t  conditions  for   peace  and\tmaintain  peace\t and
\n\t  prevent the  new non-tribals from settling down in
\n\t  the  Scheduled   area.  If   the  alienations\t are
\n\t  permitted to\tthe non-tribals there is a danger of
\n\t  large scale  exploitation by\tthe  new  non-tribal
\n\t  again with  the result  peace will be disturbed in
\n\t  that area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.\t   It  is only\twith a view to maintain peace and to
\n\t  govern the  area effectively\tRegulation I of 1970
\n\t  was passed  by  the  Governor.  A  non-tribal\t who
\n\t  validly acquired  the title will not be disturbed,
\n\t  but he  is not  allowed to sell his land to a non-
\n\t  tribal which\twill inevitably\t mean  new  entrants
\n\t  into this area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.   In a\t sample survey\tconducted in Chintapalli and
\n\t  Bhadra chalam\t it was\t found that the average size
\n\t  of holding  per family  is only  3 to 4 acres. But
\n\t  even this  extent of\tland was either mortgaged or
\n\t  otherwise transferred in favour of non tribals and
\n\t  they are in possession of the lands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.  Unless new  entrants into  the Scheduled areas are
\n\t  prevented from  settling  down  in  the  Scheduled
\n\t  areas by purchasing properties either from tribals
\n\t  or non-tribals,  it is not possible to prevent the
\n\t  exploitation of the unsophisticated tribals. It is
\n\t  only with  a view  to enforce the valid provisions
\n\t  of Regulation\t I of  1959,  the  Regulation  viz.,
\n\t  Regulation I\tof 1970\t was  made.  It\t is  in\t the
\n\t  interests of\tthe tribals and for their protection
\n\t  Regulation I\tof 1970\t was passed, because without
\n\t  restricting or prohibiting the alienation of lands
\n\t  in the  pos session  of non-tribals to non-tribals
\n\t  the objectives cannot be achieved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
453<\/span><\/p>\n
     What has  emerged from  the additional counter filed by
\nthe State in the High Court is buttressed by the contents of
\na treatise  authored by\t a well-known  research scholar. The
\ntreatise is  the culmination  of laborious  research carried
\nout in\trespect of  the very  areas which form a part of the
\nscheduled area\tof Andhra  Pradesh in  respect of  which the
\nimpugned legislation  has been\tenacted. It  has been stated
\ntherein that  more than\t 40 million Indians belong to tribal
\ncommunities distinct  from the\tgreat mass  of the  society.
\nThey are  the aboriginal races from the Dravidian architects
\nof ancient  South Indian  civilizations. The dramatic change
\nin the\tpeaceful co-existence between the tribals on the one
\nhand and  the more  dynamic section  of the society occurred
\nwhen   improved\t   communications   opened   up\t  previously
\ninaccessible tribal  areas and\trapid growth  of the  Indian
\npopulation led\tto pressure  on the land’s resources. In the
\npast forty  years most\tof the\ttribal societies  have\tcome
\nunder attack  by economically  more advanced and politically
\nmore powerful  ethnic groups  who  infiltrated\tinto  tribal
\nregions in  search of  land and\t new economic possibilities.
\nThese population  movements triggered a struggle for land in
\nwhich aboriginal  tribesmen were  usually  the\tlosers\tand,
\ndeprived of their ancestral land, turned into impoverished,
\nIanndless labourers.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  treatise the  learned author  has\t quoted\t the
\ndistressing forecast  made by Nirad C. Chaudhari in his book
\n3 wherein he has lamented:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In an  industralized India the destruction of the
\n\t  aboriginal’s\tlife   is  as\tinevitable  as\t the
\n\t  submergence of  the Egyptian temples caused by the
\n\t  dams of  the Nile .. As things are going there can
\n\t  be no grandeur in the primitive’s end. It will not
\n\t  be even  simple extinction, which is not the worst
\n\t  of human  destinies. It  is to  be feard  that the
\n\t  aboriginal’s last  act will be squalid, instead of
\n\t  being tragic.\t What will  be seen with most regret
\n\t  will be  not his disappearance but his enslavement
\n\t  and degradation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It cannot\ttherefore be  gain-said that the tribals not
\nonly require  to be  preserved and  protected in  respect of
\ntheir  economic\t and  educational  interest  but  they\talso
\nrequire\t to   be  immunized   from  social   injustice\t and
\nexploitation. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution of\n<\/p>\n
1.   Tribes of\tIndia The  Struggle  for  Survival  (1982-83
\n     edition) by Christoph von FurerHaimendorf. 2. Inside of
\n     front flap.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Inside of front flap.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The Continent of Circe. 1965.\n<\/p>\n
454<\/span><\/p>\n
India have in their wisdom and foresight taken cognizance of
\nthis vital aspect as is evidenced by the provisions embodied
\nin Article  15(4)1 and\tArticle 462  of the  Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
     The constitutional\t mandate reflected  in the aforesaid
\nArticles has  influenced this  Court in\t no small measure in
\nupholding the  constitutionality of the impugned legislative
\nprovisions enacted  with an eye on preserving and protecting
\nthe interest  of the  tribals in  the lands  in\t the  tribal
\nareas. Reference  in this  behalf may be made to Manchegowda
\nand Ors.  v. State  of Karnataka   wherein  the focus was on
\nprovisions prohibiting\ttransfers to  ‘non-tribals’ of lands
\ngranted to  the tribals\t and on remedial measures for speedy
\nrestoration of such lands to the members of Scheduled Castes
\nand Scheduled  Tribes in  cases where  the lands  had passed
\ninto the  hands of  the ‘non-tribals’. Reference may also be
\nmade to\t Lingappa Pochanna  Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra<\/a>
\nwhereby this  Court has\t upheld the constitutionality of the
\nprovisions  enacted   essentially   in\t order\t to   secure
\nrestoration to\tthe original  tribal owners  the lands which
\nhad gone out of their hands and passed into the hands of the
\n‘non-tribals’.\n<\/p>\n
     The  problem   presented  in  the\tpresent\t appeals  is
\nsomewhat different  from the problems which have surfaced so
\nfar. It\t brings into  focus the challenge to the validity of
\nthe provisions\tenacted with a view to prevent ‘non-tribals’
\nalong  with  ‘tribals’\tfrom  transferring  lands  including
\nstructures raised  thereon in favour of ‘non-tribals’ in the
\nScheduled areas.  It is\t in this context that appellants who
\nare  ‘non-tribals’   have  mounted   an\t  assault   on\t the
\nconstitutionality of  the impugned provisions by recourse to
\nthe plea that these are violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the
\nConstitution of\t India. It  is\talleged\t that  the  impugned
\nprovisions impose  unreasonable restrictions  on  the  ‘non-
\ntribal’ holders of properties in the Scheduled areas.\n<\/p>\n
1.   Art. 15(4)”Nothing\t in this article or in clause (2) of
\n     article 29\t shall prevent\tthe State  from\t making\t any
\n     special provision\tfor the\t advancement of any socially
\n     and educationally\tbackward classes  of citizens or for
\n     the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”\n<\/p>\n
2.   Article  46  “Promotion  of  educational  and  economic
\n     interests of  Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled\t Tribes\t and
\n     other weaker  Sections-The\t State\tshall  promote\twith
\n     special care  the educational and economic interests of
\n     the weaker\t sections of  the people, and in particular,
\n     of the  Scheduled Castes  and the Scheduled Tribes, and
\n     shall protect  them from social injustice and all forms
\n     of exploitation.”\n<\/p>\n
3.   1984(3) SCC P. 301\n<\/p>\n
4.   1985(l)SCC 479.\n<\/p>\n
455<\/span><\/p>\n
     The challenge rooted in Article 19(1)(f) cannot survive
\nafter the  repeal of  the said Article with effect from June
\n20, 1979  by virtue of the 44th Amendment. It cannot survive
\ninasmuch as  the doctrine  of eclipse  would come into play.
\nAll the\t same, it  needs to  be examined as it is understood
\nthat numerous  transactions  have  taken  place\t during\t the
\ninterregnum. More  so as  the matter  is of vital importance
\nfrom the  platform of  the welfare  of the  ‘tribals’  whose
\nwelfare had  exercised the  minds of the Founding Fathers in
\nshaping the  Constitution as  evidenced by Article 15(4) and
\nArticle 46  thereof.  The  question  of\t questions  then  is
\nwhether the impugned provisions prohibiting not only tribals
\nhut also  ‘non-tribals’ from  transferring their  lands\t and
\nproperties in the Scheduled areas to ‘non-tribals’ are ultra
\nvires Article  19(1)(f). The  impugned provisions  have been
\nassailed on  the ground\t of their alleged ‘unreasonableness.
\nIn order  to succeed  in their challenge the appellants will
\nhave to\t identify the obnoxious components or factors of the
\nimpugned provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     Two submissions  have been urged in order to answer the
\nquestion as to ‘why’ ‘how’ and in ‘what manner’ the impugned
\nprovisions are branded as unreasonable:\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t      The  prohibition\timposed\t on  the-  ‘tribals’
\n\t  restraining  them   from  transferring  lands\t and
\n\t  properties  to   ‘non-tribals’  is  understandable
\n\t  inasmuch as  the objective  is to  ensure that the
\n\t  total extent\tof properties held by the tribals is
\n\t  not diminished.  However,  there  is\tno  rational
\n\t  basis for  restraining transfer of properties from
\n\t  ‘non-tribals’ to  ‘non-tribals’ as  such  transfer
\n\t  does no  more than  substitute one ‘non-tribal’ by
\n\t  another ‘non-tribal’\tand does  not in  any manner
\n\t  diminish the\textent of  properties  held  by\t the
\n\t  ‘tribal’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t      The   prohibition\t against   transferring\t the
\n\t  properties to\t ‘non  tribals’\t being\tin  absolute
\n\t  terms, a  ‘non-tribal’ cannot even raise a loan on
\n\t  his properties  even in  the event  of  the  ‘non-
\n\t  tribal’ being under economic compulsion to do so.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  not possible  to\t accede\t to  any  of  the  aforesaid
\nsubmissions. As\t highlighted  earlier,\toriginally  all\t the
\nlands in  these tracks were owned by the ‘tribals’. With the
\nadvent of  the ‘non-tribals’  in the  late 19th\t Century and
\nearly 20th  Century, the  lands changed hands from ‘tribals’
\nto ‘non-tribals’.  This change\tof ownership was a result of
\nexploitation arising:  (1) in  the context  of money lending
\noperations  and\t  (2)  in   the\t context   of  dubious\t and
\nunconscionable dealings in the
\n456<\/span>
\ncourse of trade. The ‘non-tribals’ had so often circumvented
\nthe legislation enacted in order to protect the ‘tribals’ by
\nrecourse to  benami transactions, and by recourse to dubious
\ndevices. The  poor ignorant, illiterate, and unsophisticated
\ntribals had  succumbed to  the\twiles  of  the\teconomically
\nstronger and unscrupulous ‘non-tribals’. A legislation which
\nin  essence   and  substance  aims  at\trestoration  to\t the
\n‘tribals’ of  the lands\t which originally  belonged  to\t the
\n‘tribals’ but  which passed  into the hands of ‘non-tribals’
\nin   the    aforesaid\tbackground   certainly\t cannot\t  be
\ncharacterised as  unreasonable). The  scanning must  be done
\nthrough the  objective lens  of the  Court representing\t the
\ncollective conscience  of the  community and not through the
\ntinged lens  of appellants  whose economic  interests may be
\nprejudicially affected\tby the impugned provisions. In other
\nwords, the  Court examining  the matter from the perspective
\nof the\tConstitutional mandate\tarmed with  the criterion of
\nobjectivity and\t overall interest  of the community at large
\nmust be satisfied that the restrictions are unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
     As a matter of fact it would be unreasonable and unfair
\nto hold\t that the  impugned provisions\tare unreasonable  on
\nthis account.  Surely it is not unreasonable to restore upto
\nthe ‘tribals’  what originally belonged to them out of which
\nthey were  deprived as\ta result of exploitative invasion on
\nthe part of ‘non-tribals’. In the first place should lessons
\nnot be drawn from past experience to plug the loop-holes and
\nprevent future\trecourse to  devices to\t flout the  law? The
\ncommunity  cannot  shut\t its  eyes  to\tthe  fact  that\t the
\ncompetition between  the  ‘tribals’  and  the  ‘non-tribals’
\npartakes of  the character  of a  race between a handicapped
\none-legged person  and an  able bodied\ttwo  legged  person.
\nTrue, transfer\tby ‘non-tribals’  to ‘non-tribal  would\t not
\ndiminish the  pool. It\twould maintain status quo. But is it
\nsufficient  or\t fair  enough  to  freeze  the\texploitative
\ndeprivation  of\t the  ‘tribals’\t and  thereby  legalize\t and
\nperpetuate the past-wrong instead of effacing the same? As a
\nmatter of  fact\t it  would  be\tunjust,\t unfair\t and  highly
\nunreasonable merely  to\t freeze\t the  situation\t instead  of
\nreversing the  injustice and  restoring the status-quo-ante.
\nThe  provisions\t  merely  command  that\t if  a\tland  holder
\nvoluntarily and on his own volition is desirous of alienting
\nthe land,  he may  do so  only in a favour of a ‘tribal’. It
\nwould be adding insult to injury to impose such a disability
\nonly  on   the\ttribals\t  (the\tvictims\t of  oppression\t and
\nexploitation themselves)  and discriminate  against them  in
\nthis regard  whilst leaving  the ‘non-tribals’\tto thrive on
\nthe fruits  of their  exploitation at the cost of ‘tribals’.
\nThe ‘non-tribal’  economic exploiters cannot be installed on
\nthe pedestal of immunity and accorded a privileged treatment
\nby permitting, them to transfer the lands and structures, if
\nany, raised on
\n457<\/span>
\nsuch lands, to ‘non-tribals’ and make profits at the cost of
\nthe tribals. It would not only be tantamount to perpetuating
\nthe exploitation  and  injustice,  it  would  tantamount  to
\nplacing\t premium   on\tthe   exploitation   and   injustice
\nperpetrated by\tthe non-tribals. Thus it would be the height
\nof unreasonableness  to impose\tthe disability\tonly on\t the
\ntribals whilst\tleaving out  the ‘non-tribals. It would also
\nbe counter  productive to  do so. It must also be emphasized
\nthat to\t freeze the pool of lands available to the ‘tribals’
\nat the\tpresent level  is virtually  to diminish  the  pool.
\nThere is  no escape  from this outcome because the realities
\nof life\t being what  they are  with the\t population increase
\namongst the  tribals remaining\tunfrozen, increase  in their
\npopulation will\t automatically diminish\t the size  of  their
\npool if the same is frozen. No unreasonableness therefore is
\ninvolved in making the prohibition against transfer to ‘non-
\ntribals’ applicable to both the ‘tribal’ as also to the non-
\ntribal’ owners in the scheduled area. As a matter of fact it
\nwould have been unreasonable to do otherwise. In the absence
\nof protection, the economically stronger ‘non-tribals’ would
\nin course  of time  devour all\tthe available lands and wipe
\nout the\t very identity\tof the tribals who cannot survive in
\nthe absence  of the only source of livelihood they presently
\nhave. It is precisely for this reason that the Architects of
\nthe Constitution  have with  farsight and foresight provided
\nin paragraph  5(2) of  Fifth Schedule  that the Governor may
\nmake regulations  inter alia “prohibiting or restricting the
\ntransfer of  land in the scheduled areas notwithstanding any
\nprovision embodied  in the  Constitution elsewhere”.  And as
\nhas  emerged   from  the   foregoing   discussion,   it\t  is
\nunreasonable to restrict the prohibition against transfer to
\n‘tribals’. It has to be made comprehensive enough to embrace
\nthe ‘non-tribals’  as well.  With  the\timprovement  in\t the
\neconomic conditions  of the  ‘tribals’, there  would not  be
\nmuch difficulty\t in finding  ‘tribal’  purchasers.  Besides,
\nSection\t 3(1)(c)   thoughtfully\t provides   even   for\t the
\ncontingency of\tnot being able to find a ‘tribal’ willing or
\nprepared to  purchase the  property. This  provision obliges
\nthe State  Government to  acquire the property on payment of
\ncompensation as provided therein. One can envisage that some
\nhardship would\tbe occasioned to the owners to lands located
\nin the\tscheduled areas.  But such  hardship  would  operate
\nequally on  the ‘tribals’ as well as the ‘non-tribals’. Such
\nhardship  notwithstanding   keeping  in\t  mind\tthe   larger
\nperspective of the interest of the community in its entirety
\nin the\tlight of  the foregoing discussion, the restrictions
\ncannot be  condemned as\t unreasonable. More so if the factor
\nthat  the   original  acquisition   by\t`non-tribals’\tfrom
\n‘tribals’ was polluted by the sins of exploitation committed
\nby the non-tribals’ is not ignored.\n<\/p>\n
458<\/span><\/p>\n
     The next  submission is  built on\tthe premise that the
\nimpugned A provision does not permit the owner even to raise
\na loan\ton the\tsecurity of  the  land\towned  by  him.\t The
\nsubmission overlooks  the amendment  introduced\t by  Section
\n3A(1)1\tinserted   by  Regulation  1  of  1971.\t True,\tthis
\nprovision was  introduced after\t a few\tmonths. But  then in
\nnone of\t these appeals a grievance is voiced that any of the
\nwrit petitioners  in fact  wanted to raise a loan, but could
\nnot do\tso, during this time-bracket of a few months. In any
\ncase  the   challenge  can   no\t longer\t survive,  with\t the
\nintroduction of Section 3A.\n<\/p>\n
     Another argument  which did  not succeed  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt has  been hopefully  persisted with  in the Court. The
\nexpression “Land”  has been  used in its restricted sense in
\nparagraph 5(2)(a)  of Schedule\tV and therefore the impugned
\nprovisions prohibiting\tthe transfer  of  lands\t along\twith
\nstructures thereon  by employing  the expression  “immovable
\nproperty” is  not  in  accordance  with\t law.  Such  is\t the
\nargument. This\targument is devoid of merit for two reasons:
\nFirstly, there\tis no  reason to believe that ‘land’ has not
\nbeen employed  in its  legal sense. The expression ‘land’ in
\nits legal  sense is a comprehensive expression which is wide
\nenough to  include structures, if any, raised thereon. While
\nthis proposition  hardly needs to be buttressed, support can
\nbe sought from the following sources:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Dictionary of English Law.’
\n\t  LAND, in  its restrained sense, means soil, but in
\n\t  its  legal  acceptation  it  is  a  generic  term,
\n\t  comprehending every  species of  ground,  soil  or
\n\t  earth, whatsoever,  as meadows,  pastures,  woods,
\n\t  moors,  waters,  marshes,  furze,  and  heath;  it
\n\t  includes also\t houses, mills,\t castles, and  other
\n\t  buildings; for  with the  conveyance of  the land,
\n\t  the structures  upon it  pass also. And besides an
\n\t  indefinite ex\t tent upwards,\tit extends downwards
\n\t  to the globe’s centre,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.   3A(1):  Special   provision  in  respect  of  mortgages
\n     without possession:  Notwithstanding anything contained
\n     in this  Regulation or  in any  enactment, rule  or law
\n     inforce in the Agency tracts,
\n     (1) any  person whether or not such person is member of
\n     a Schedule\t Tribe, may,  subject to  the provisions  of
\n     Clause (2)\t mortgage without  possession, any immovable
\n     property situated\tin the\tAgency tracts,\tto  any\t co-
\n     operative Society including a land mortgage bank, or to
\n     any bank or other financial institution approved by the
\n     State Government.\n<\/p>\n
2. 1959 Edition-Vol. 2. p. 1053 by Earl Jowitt.\n<\/p>\n
459<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  hence the maxim, Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad
\n\t  caelum et  ad inferos;  or, more curtly expressed,
\n\t  Cujus est solum A ejus est altum (Co . Litt. 4a)”
\n\t  “Words And Phrases Judicially Defined:1
\n\t  The word  ‘land’ would  be variously understood by
\n\t  different persons.  To a  farmer the\tword  ‘land’
\n\t  would not mean his farm buildings; to a lawyer the
\n\t  word would  include every  thing that was upon the
\n\t  land fixed  immovably upon  it. Smith v. Richmond,
\n\t  [1899] A.C.  448, per\t Lord Halsbury,\t L.C., at p.\n<\/p>\n
\t  448.”\n<\/p>\n
“The Law Lexicon:2
\nThe word  “land” is a comprehensive term, including standing
\ntrees, buildings, fences, stones, and waters, as well as the
\nearth we  stand on.  Standing trees must be regarded as part
\nand parcel  of the  land in  which they\t are rooted and from
\nwhich they draw their support.” D
\n     Secondly, to  interpret the  expression ‘land’  in\t its
\nnarrow sense is to render the benevolent provisions impotent
\nand ineffective. In that event the prohibition can be easily
\ncircumvented by\t just raising a farm house or a structure on
\nthe land.  The impugned\t provisions  were  inserted  by\t the
\nAmending Regulation  precisely to  plug such  loopholes\t and
\nmake the  law really effective. The High Court was perfectly
\njustified in  repelling this meritless plea. It is therefore
\nnot possible to accede to this submission.\n<\/p>\n
     Equally  meritless\t  in   the   submission\t  that\t the
\npresumption embodied in section 3(1)(b) is unreasonable. The
\nHigh Court  has unhesitatingly negatived this plea. The High
\nCourt has reasoned:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “With\t regard\t  to  the   presumption,  which\t  is
\n\t  impugned, it\tis a  rebuttable presumption  and  a
\n\t  rule\tof   evidence.\tThe   non-tribals  who\thave
\n\t  acquired the\tlands, and properties of the tribals
\n\t  could be  reasonably expected\t to  disclose  their
\n\t  title to  the properties.  This also\taccords with
\n\t  the rule  of\tevidence,  that\t when  any  fact  is
\n\t  specially within  the knowledge  of any person the
\n\t  burden of proving that fact is upon him\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.   By Roland Burrows-Vol. III 1y944 Edition p. 206.
\n2 .  By P. Ramanatha Aiyar-Reprint Edition 1487-p. 700.\n<\/p>\n
460<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  vide-Section 106  of the  Indian Evidence Act. The
\n\t  tribals are mostly ignorant persons, and naturally
\n\t  suffer from in evitable handicaps in the matter of
\n\t  setting up  or proving  their rights to lands, and
\n\t  property which they had lost.”\n<\/p>\n
The reasoning  is impeccable  and faultless.  The plea\tmust
\naccordingly fail.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  must therefore  fail and  be dismissed. No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t   Appeals dismissed.\n461<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1626, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 443 Author: M Thakkar Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J) PETITIONER: P.RAMI REDDY & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T20:25:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T20:25:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\"},\"wordCount\":5904,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\",\"name\":\"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T20:25:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T20:25:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988","datePublished":"1988-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T20:25:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988"},"wordCount":5904,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988","name":"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T20:25:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rami-reddy-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-etc-on-14-july-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 14 July, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}