Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975, which prohibits sale of tribal land to a non-tribal if it is intended for agricultural use. The Court held:
“The restriction placed on the Collector while granting sanction to the transfer of occupancy by sale by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal who intends to use it for agricultural purpose is reasonable in nature and does not fall foul of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further held that the rule could not be read down as it had a clear nexus with the objective of preventing exploitation of tribals and safeguarding their land.
Facts
The petitioner, a member of the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe, sought permission to sell ancestral agricultural land to a non-tribal (Respondent No. 4), whose father had been a tenant on the land since 1940. The parties had amicably settled the matter and approached the Collector under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for permission to transfer. The request was denied in 2006 and again in 2010 under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules, which restricts such transfer for agricultural purposes. The petitioner later filed a writ petition challenging the validity of this rule.
Issues
- Whether Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules violates Article 14 of the Constitution by making an irrational classification between transfers for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes.
- Whether Rule 4(1)(a)(i) unduly restricts the discretion of the Collector under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
- Whether the rule can be read down to allow exceptional cases where transfer for agricultural use is justified.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Violation of Article 14: Rule 4(1)(a)(i) creates an irrational distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural transfers. This arbitrary classification has no nexus to the object of protecting tribals.
- Fetters Collector’s Discretion: Section 36A allows the Collector to grant sanction based on circumstances, but the rule imposes an unjustifiable bar against transfers for agricultural use, contradicting the parent legislation.
- Alternative Remedy by Reading Down the Rule: The Court should read down the rule to permit transfers for agricultural use in exceptional or deserving cases to preserve its constitutionality.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Legislative Objective Justified: Rule 4(1)(a)(i) seeks to protect tribal land from exploitation. Allowing sales for agricultural use to non-tribals would facilitate reconcentration of land and harm tribal economic autonomy.
- Uniform Application: The restriction applies uniformly to all tribals and does not create any unreasonable classification.
- Constitutional Backing: Cited Article 46 of the Constitution, which mandates the protection of Scheduled Tribes and their economic interests.
- Collector’s Powers Are Intact: Within the limits of the rule, the Collector has full discretion. The rule merely outlines permissible circumstances for grant of sanction.
- No Grounds to Read Down: There is no vagueness or overreach that would necessitate reading down the rule.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the 1975 Rules were enacted following a committee’s recommendation to prevent exploitation of tribal land. Rule 4(1)(a)(i) was specifically crafted to curb the sale of tribal land to non-tribals for agricultural use — a provision directly traceable to constitutional mandates under Article 46.
The provision under challenge does not impose a total prohibition but only limits transfer to cases where land is intended for non-agricultural purposes. Leases and mortgages for agricultural use are still permitted under Rule 4(1)(b) and (c), evidencing that the law is not unduly restrictive.
Precedent Analysis
- Raoji Baliram Urkude v. State of Maharashtra – Upheld the constitutionality of Section 36A, holding that protecting tribals from exploitation is a valid legislative objective.
- Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra (1984) – Affirmed that statutory protections for tribals are remedial measures aligned with Article 46.
- Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde (1995) – Recognized that prior permission under Section 36A serves a constitutional function to prevent exploitative transfers.
- Atul Projects India Ltd. v. Babu Dewoo Farle (2011) – Directed that protective laws for tribals must be interpreted to fulfill their constitutional purpose.
The Court distinguished petitioner’s reliance on decisions like Deepak Sibal, Lok Prahari, and Ramesh Chandra Sharma by holding that those cases dealt with classifications that were unrelated to statutory protections for tribals.
Court’s Reasoning
- The restriction is rooted in constitutional directives and decades of legislative and administrative history aimed at preserving tribal land ownership.
- A tribal can transfer land freely to another tribal even for agricultural use — no irrational discrimination exists.
- The Collector’s discretion is not eliminated but rather circumscribed in line with constitutional policy.
- The rule serves a legitimate and compelling state interest: preventing tribals from being reduced to laborers on their ancestral land.
“The only restriction placed is when a tribal intends to transfer his occupancy by way of sale in favour of a non-tribal… This restriction is reasonable in nature.”
Conclusion
The Court held that Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules:
- Is not violative of Article 14;
- Does not place any unjustified fetter on the Collector’s discretion under Section 36A;
- Cannot be read down in the manner suggested by the petitioner.
The writ petition was dismissed.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms the primacy of social justice for Scheduled Tribes over commercial freedom in land transactions. It sends a clear message that any challenge to long-standing protective legislation must demonstrate clear constitutional infirmity. The Court’s decision will serve as a precedent in similar disputes and could prevent further dilution of protective land laws in tribal regions.
