Keshabo
& Anr Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [1996] INSC 23 (8 January 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (1) 571 1996 SCALE (1)447
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the order dated May 7, 1992 of the Division
Bench of the High Court of M.P. in M.P. No. 1499/92. The admitted position is
that Section 165 of the M.P. Revenue Code, 1959 [for short, "the
Code"] was enforced in Gariband area from October 2, 1959 by way of an amendment and publication in the Gazetter. The
sale of the land of the Bhumiswami rights in favour of the appellants by the Adivasi
(Scheduled Tribe) Somu Gond was made on December 23, 1960. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue
in its order dated January 16, 1992 in Revision Case No.150/90 confirming the
order of Additional Commissioner dated 23.9.1990 held that even prior to 1976
even under the unamended Section 165 (6) of the Code it is mandated that the
purchaser should obtain prior permission from the competent authority for
alienation of the Bhumiswami right of the adivasis. Since the permission was
not taken, the sale was held void. The High Court by its order dated May 7, 1992 affirmed the view of the Board of Revenue.
It is
contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the notification under
sub-section (6) of Section 165 was published in 1977 and the sale having been
made in 1960, the finding of the Tribunal that the sale is void, is not correct
in law. We find no force in the contention. Section 165(6) reads thus:
"Notwithstanding
anything in sub-section (1) the right of Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which
has been declared to be aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a
notification in that behalf for the whole or part of the area to which this code
applies shall not be transferred to a person not belonging to such tribe
without the permission of a Revenue Officer non below the rank of Collector,
given for reasons to be recorded in writing." A reading of this
sub-section would also clearly indicate that the Bhumiswami right belonging to
a tribe, which has been declared to be ab original tribe by the State
Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area
to which the Code applies, shall not be transferred to a non-tribal persons,
not belonging to such tribe, without prior permission of the Revenue Officer
not below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing.
The Board of Revenue has pointed out that prior to the amendment in 1976,
obtaining permission for alienation of the land was a condition precedent. If
tat condition precedent, viz. , obtaining prior permission from the competent
authority for reasons to be recorded therein was not taken, the sale in
contravention of the Act, therefore, becomes void. It is a welfare legislation
made to protect the ownership rights in the land of a Schedules Tribe to
effectuate the constitutional obligation of Articles 39(b) and 46 of the
Constitution read with the Preamble. Economic empowerment of a tribal to provide
economic democracy is the goal. Prevention of exploitation of them due to
ignorance or indegency is constitutional duty under Article 46. Agricultural
land gives economic status to the tiller. Therefore, any alienation of land in
contravention of the above objectives is void. It is contended that the
application under Section 170 [1] should have been filled within two years from
the date of sale.
Since
the application was not so filed, the authorities were not right in directing
entertainment of the application. It is not in dispute that the authority has
jurisdiction suo motu to go into the violation of the statutory provisions.
Even
otherwise, since it is a beneficial legislation, the authorities are bound to
give effect to constitutional policy, they are not devoid of jurisdiction, even
if it is filed beyond limitation to entertain the applications. It is a matter
of public policy and of discretion. Under these circumstances, we do not think
there is any substantial question of law warranting interference.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2