Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 (‘the 1975 Rules’), the Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., opined that the restriction placed on grant of sanction to the transfer of occupancy by way of sale in favour of non-tribal only when the transferee intended to use it for non-agricultural purposes was legally justifiable as the object behind the same was to prevent non-tribals from accumulating agricultural lands of tribals which could result in future exploitation of tribals and requiring them to undertake agricultural operations on the very lands of which they were owners.
The Court opined that in absence of any bar for a tribal to transfer his occupancy in favour of another tribal who could continue to use such land for agricultural purpose, such restriction on the transfer in favour of a non-tribal by way of sale if the land was to be used for agricultural purpose did not suffer from the vice of classification and thus, the challenge to Rule 4(1)(a)(i) could not be accepted.
Background
The petitioner stated that he had succeeded to an ancestral lands, situated at Mouje Ashagad (Asave), Dahanu, Palghar and he belonged to a “Mahadev Koli” tribe, which was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent 4’s father was inducted as a tenant of the lands by the petitioner’s predecessor in the year 1940 and thus, an application under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘the 1966 Code’) was filed, thereafter, which the petitioner and Respondent 4 arrived at an amicable settlement. The petitioner sought permission to transfer the lands in favour of Respondent 4 and thus, an application was filed before the Collector.
Later, the petitioner was informed that Respondent 4 was a non-tribal and as the land was being purchased for agricultural use, in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules, permission for transfer could not be granted. The petitioner made another application addressed to the Revenue Minister for State reiterating the request but he was again informed that in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1)(a)(i), and as the land was being transferred to a non-tribal for agricultural use, such permission could not be granted. Thus, the petitioner challenged the validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i), stating that the said rule permitted transfer by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal only if the land was to be used for non-agricultural purposes.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that a tribal was free to transfer his occupancy in favour of another tribal and it was only when a tribal intended to transfer his occupancy to a non-tribal that the previous sanction of the Collector under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) was necessary. The Court opined that the restriction placed on grant of sanction to the transfer of occupancy by way of sale in favour of non-tribal only when the transferee intended to use it for non-agricultural purposes was legally justifiable as the object behind the same was to prevent non-tribals from accumulating agricultural lands of tribals which could result in future exploitation of tribals and requiring them to undertake agricultural operations on the very lands of which they were owners.
The Court opined that 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 was reasonable in nature and did not fall foul of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution as the object was clear that the agricultural lands of tribals were intended to be protected.
The Court further noted that Rules 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the 1975 Rules did not prohibit a tribal from granting lease or mortgage of land for agricultural purposes and a tribal was free to lease out or mortgage his occupancy for agricultural purpose and the only restriction was that when an occupancy was intended to be sold, the transferee must put the land to bonafide non-agricultural purposes. The Court stated that this would indicate that the restriction on the transfer of occupancy placed by Rule 4(1)(a)(i) was not absolute and that it was subject to reasonable exceptions in the form of lease or mortgage by a tribal to a non-tribal for agricultural use. The Court opined that the restriction as placed was reasonable in nature considering the historical background behind the enactment of these statutory provisions with the object of safeguarding the interest of tribals and their lands.
The Court opined that the Collector had full discretion based on which he might or might not grant sanction under Section 36-A and thus, it could not be said that the discretion conferred on the Collector while considering the grant of sanction under Section 36-A was restricted in any manner whatsoever. The Collector could exercise his discretion in accordance with law within the statutory framework, and there was no restriction placed in that regard.
The Court stated that under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules, it was permissible for a tribal to transfer his occupancy if the non-tribal transferor intended to use the land for bonafide non-agricultural purposes. Further, if transfer of an occupancy to a non-tribal who intended to use it for agricultural purposes was not permissible, then the Collector could not entertain such application since it would be beyond the purview of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules. The Court opined that once it was found that the restriction placed on a tribal on the transfer of his occupancy to a non-tribal for agricultural purpose was reasonable in nature, it could not be said that the discretion to be exercised by the Collector was restricted. Thus, the Court rejected the contention that the discretion conferred on the Collector in the matter of grant of sanction under Section 36-A of the 1966 Code being restrictive in nature was bad in law.
The Court relied on Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 222, and opined that an individual hardship by itself could not be a ground to hold a provision to be invalid or unworkable especially in the light of the fact that such provision was enacted keeping in mind the Directive Principles under Article 46 of the Constitution for the larger good and welfare of tribals.
The Court opined that in absence of any bar for a tribal to transfer his occupancy in favour of another tribal who could continue to use such land for agricultural purpose, such restriction on the transfer in favour of a non-tribal by way of sale if the land was to be used for agricultural purpose did not suffer from the vice of classification and thus, the challenge to Rule 4(1)(a)(i) could not be accepted. The Court dismissed the writ petition as it did not find any merit in the challenge raised to the validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the 1975 Rules.
[Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2018, decided on 26-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Abhinav Chandrachud with Unnati Ghia and Subodh Kurudkar, Advocates, i/by Kurudkar Associates, for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader, Vaibhav Charalwar, ‘B’ Panel Counsel and M.S. Bane, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3; Dharmesh Pandya with Tejal Pandya, Advocates, i/by Ashwin Pandya & Associates, for Respondent 4.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
