You are on page 1of 2

Case Sumarry of Samatha Vs.State of A.P. and Ors.

AIR1997SC3297

Brief Facts: Mining leases were given by the State of Andhra Pradesh to several non-tribal persons - K Appa Rao, M/s Perclase India Ltd., M/s Kalyani Minerals, M Seetharama Swamy, R K Deo etc. in the region of Borra Reserved Forest Area and surrounding 14 villages. In the light of Section 3 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959, Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 3 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 appeals directed to resolve mutually inconsistent law adumbrated by Division Benches of Andhra Pradesh High Court. One Division Bench held that Regulation and Mining Act of 1957 does not prohibit grant of mining leases of Government land in Scheduled area to non tribals and another Division Bench in earlier point of time had take diametrically opposite view and held that mining lease illegal State Government granted mining leases in Scheduled areas to several non tribal persons

Issues Involved: Whether Regulation would apply to transfer of Government land to non-tribals? Transfer of immovable property between member of Scheduled Tribes to non-Scheduled Tribe member null and void. Non-tribal transferee acquired no right, title and interest in that behalf in furtherance of such sale. Prohibition of transfer of immovable property situated in agency tracts by a person, whether or not such person is a member of ST, unless made in favour of a person, who is member of ST or a society composed solely of members of ST. Whether lease constituted transfer? Section 105 defines 'lease' as transfer of right to enjoy immovable property for certain period for consideration of price paid or promised to transferor on such terms and conditions - lease creates right or interest in enjoyment to remain in possession for duration of lease unless it is determined in accordance with contract or statute. Whether grant of mining lease in Scheduled Areas is outside purview of Regulation? Word 'person' would include State Government and transfer of land in Scheduled Area for mining purposes in favour of non-tribals stands prohibited - non-tribals have transferred their lease hold interest in favour of respondent companies. Whether leases are in violation of Forest Conservation Act or Environment Protection Act?

Object of Forest Conservation Act is to prevent any further deforestation which causes ecological imbalance and leads to environment degradation - it is necessary for State Government to obtain prior permission of Central Government - before granting leases State Government obliged to obtain concurrence of Central Government. Ratio of the Case: Agriculture is the only source of livelihood for tribals. They have emotions and attachment with their lands. The land assures them equality of status and dignity and economic and social justice. The objective of Para 5(2) of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India is to impose total prohibition of transfer of immovable property to any person other than a tribal for peace and proven good management of a tribal area. Section 3 of the Regulation prohibits the transfer of immovable property by a Scheduled Tribe member to a non-Scheduled Tribe member. The word 'regulation' in para 5(2)(b) is of wide importance. Public law interpretation to sub serves the constitutional purpose without recourse to private law principles. Transfer of land in a Scheduled Area by way of lease, for mining purpose in favour of non-tribals stands prohibited by para 5(2)(b) of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 3 of the Regulation.

Judgement: The Supreme Court reversed the judgement of High Court and gave the judgement against the State Government, cancelled the mining leases and in favor of Samatha.

You might also like