Samatha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others

CASE BRIEF

Appellant – Samatha

Respondent – State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Decided on: 11.07.1997

Statues Referred-

1. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980
2. Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967
3. Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation (1 of 1959) as amended by Regulation II of 1970 (Regulation). Shortly FC act.

Facts:

1. Borra reserved forest area along with its environs consisting of 14 villages, is the notified scheduled area in Anan – thagiri Mandal of Vishakhapatnam District of Andhra Pradesh. The State Government granted mining leases in this area to several non – tribal per – sons.
2. Appeals are directed to resolve mutually inconsistent law adumbrated by two division benches of Andhra Pradesh in which it dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the power of government to transfer the government land situated in tribal area to the non – tribals for mining purpose. Also states that statues referred do not prohibit grant of mining leases of government land to non – tribals and does not apply to the renewals.
3. It is the case of appellant that after re – survey, the entire area was identified as reserved forest or at any rate is a forest area in scheduled area.
4. On the factual matrix, the appellant society claimed to protect the interests and life of the schedule tribes in the area.
5. The division bench held that by operation of the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Regulations and Section 2 of FC act, the appellant is not entitled to mining operations.
6. The appeals of Samatha were allowed and judgement of high court were set aside.
7. Appellant therefore, filed the appeal under Supreme Court of India.

Issue

In the light of such situation created primary issues concerned can be regarded as; whether the Regulation would apply to transfer of government land to non – tribal ; whether the government can grant mining lease of the lands situated in scheduled area to a non – tribal; whether the leases are in violation of Environment Act, 1986?

Contentions by Parties:

Appellant’s Arguments:

1. The appellant advanced the contention that under the Regulation transfer of all lands in schedule area to a non – tribal is prohibited and the said prohibition equally applied to the government land and as such the mining leases in favour of the private respondents who are non – tribals are void. Further it was argued that the word ‘person’ in Section 3(1) of the Regulation would include government.
2. In view of Section 2 of Conservation Act no forest land can be utilised for non – forest purpose without the consent of Central Government.
3. Lastly, it was contended that Section 11(5) of the MMRD act the leases in favour of the private respondent who are non tribals must be declared void
4. The history of the tribal areas traced from the administration under the British rule to the inclusion of schedule 5 in the constitution conferring a special power to frame regulation for peace and good government in area clearly indicate that there should not be any allotment of land to the non – tirbals in tribal area.
5. The term ‘peace and good government’ should be given a wide interpretation.
6. The entire object of amendment act of 1970 was to prohibit totally transfer of any land in favour of a non – tribal member within the agency tract. Also the word ‘person’ should be given widest perspective.
7. Relied strongly that the majority view held the word “vest” in Section 3 of the act has shades taking colour from the context in which it is used.
8. Forest should include all forests commonly known as forest and therefore, even if the area on which mining activities are carried on by respondent do not form a part of reserved forest.
9. Mining leases within the tribal areas must also be annulled, as the mining activities pollutes the tribal atmosphere becoming hazardous to human life.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The regulation in question prior to its amendment does not prohibit transfer of land by any person in favour of non – scheduled tribe person but extremely postulates that such a transfer must be with the consent of competent authority.
2. If interpretation as to word “person” as contended by appellant is accepted it would lead to absurdity and provisions of Section 3(1) would be meaningless. Further argued that the word person as per clause (a) does not include state.
3. Bearing in mind the object with which the constitution has conferred power on the governor to frame regulation, there is no imperative to construct the word ‘person’.
4. Ordinarily a particular word used in a particular statute should receive same meaning unless and until it is necessary to ascribe a different meaning.
5. Respondent counsel contended that the respondents does not dispute the proposition that the expression forest land in conservation act should be given wider meaning and the mining activities over the forest land cannot continue unless prior approval of central government.

Judgement

The Apex Court’s bench comprising of K. Ramaswamy, S Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Pattanik; held the following:

1. The vesting of disputed area in the central government by virtue of Section 3 of the act is limited as a statutory receiver with the duty for its management and administration, whereas the vesting of adjacent area other than the disputed area acquired by the act in central government is absolute with the power of management and administration.
2. However, constructing Section 3 and 4(1) held that the area includes the whole bundle movable and immovable property and all other rights and interests and whole bundle of property and rights vests by reason in Section 4(2) in the central government free and held the act to be unconstitutional as the provisions Section 3,4 and 8 were held to be invalid.
3. Though ordinarily a particular word used in statute should be given the same meaning but it is permissible to construe the said word differently depending upon the object of the act and the scheme of the act and the purpose sought to be achieved yet.
4. The word ‘person’ occurring in Section 3(1) of the regulation does not include State and as such the mining leases granted in favour different persons do not contravene the provisions of the regulation but leases should be required to spend a part of profit for the upliftment of the tribals and for maintaining the ecology of scheduled areas.
5. In the state of affairs even though the court is of considered opinion that the forest land in Section 2 of conservation act; until it is so determined by state government that the mining activities of the respondents were being carried on over forest land it would not be possible to hold the provisions. The only possible direction court had issued was of the consideration that forest department should inspect the mining areas of private respondents.
6. The leases in favour of respondent cannot be said invalid on the ground of infraction of Section 11(5) of MMRD act. Appellant’s contention cannot be sustained.
7. Moreover, on the facts alleged it was not possible to embark upon the inquiry as to whether the grant of leases within the tribal area are in violation of the provisions of Environment Protection Act nor the leases could be annulled on that score. Contention of appellant must be rejected.

Rule of Law:

The provision of law which was under scrutiny by Hon’ble Apex Court of India was not with the sufficient proof for approval.

Conclusion:

In conclusion with could be said that Supreme Court in this case laid down the literal meaning of various terms to its action sense and protection the rights of Scheduled tribe along with the tribals and non – tribals both and also greatly emphasized on conservation of environment.