- (1.) These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments and orders of a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated June 21 and 27, 1984 and raise a common question relating to the constitutional validity of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The question is whether Ss. 3 and 4 of the impugned Act which provided for annulment of transfers made by members of Scheduled Tribes and for restoration of lands to them on certain conditions were ultra vires the State Legislature as being beyond the purview of Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule or were otherwise violative of Art. 14, Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31 of the Constitution.
(2.) Facts in these two appeals are more or less similar. In Civil Appeal No. 4384 of 1984, the appellant Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar had by a registered sale deed dated November 30, 1965 purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 27 having an area of 20 acres 39 gunthas from Raju Meshram, father of respondent No. 2 Sonerab Raju Meshram who being a gond was a tribal within the meaning of S. 2(1)(j) of the Act for a consideration of Rs. 1300/- with the prior permission of the Collector as required by S. 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and was placed in possession thereof. Suo motu proceedings were started by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura in District Chandrapur under S. 3(1) of the Act for restoration of the lands to respondent No. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer initiated an inquiry, summoned the parties and recorded their statements. By his order dated February 19, 1977 he held that it was admitted by the appellant that his transferor Raju Meshram was a gond and therefore a tribal under S. 2(1)(j) of the Act, that no improvements had been made by him on the land and that there were no encumbrances thereon. He therefore held that the case falls within S. 3(1) of the Act and recorded that respondent No. 2 Sonerao Raju Meshram, the tribal, had given an undertaking in Form III that he required the land for his personal cultivation and was willing to deposit the amount fixed by him for payment to the appellant. He accordingly directed in exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 3(1)(ii) of the Act that possession of an area of 19 acres 19 gunthas out of Survey No. 27 be taken from the appellant and restored to respondent No.. 2 on payment of Rs. 461.76p. towards the consideration equal to 48 times of the assessment as required by S. 3(4)(b) after setting apart a part of the remaining portion of 1 acre 20 gunthas covered by a dwelling house. The appellant preferred an appeal under S. 6 of the Act to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur but a single Member of the Tribunal by his order dated August 5, 1977 upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court assailing the orders of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal as well as that of the Sub-Divisional Officer. A learned Single Judge by his order dated March 13, 1984 dismissed the writ petition in limine and a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by a Division Bench by its order dated June 27, 1984. Facts in Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1984 are more or less similar. We must here mention that the High Court in Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra being Special Civil Appln. No. 1064 of 1976 decided on June 20, 1976 upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and Civil Appeal No. 982/76 is pending before this Court.
(3.) The impugned Act is supplemental or incidental to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the relevant tenancy laws viz. the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 in relation to the Vidarbha region of the State, the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in relation to the Hyderabad region of the State and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 in relation to the rest of the State. Similar measures have been undertaken by different States placing restrictions on transfer of lands by members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes for the implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Art. 46 of the Constitution which enjoins that "the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation";