SAMATHA V.

STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH

ABSTRACT..
In September 1997 the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement in this case that established that government lands, tribal lands, and forestlands in the scheduled Areas cannot be leased out to non-tribals or to private companies for mining or industrial operations. Consequently, all mining leases granted by the State governments in V Schedule Areas therefore became illegal, null and void. The State Government was asked to stop all industries from mining operations mining activity should be taken up only by the State Mineral Development Corporation or a tribal cooperative if they are in compliance with the Forest Conservation Act and the Environment Protection Act

PROLOGUE
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. The appellants filed petitions against the State Government and the mining lease holders contending that the area that was leased falls under a notified scheduled area and that it was against the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980. The Andhra Pradesh High Court gave judgement in favour of the State Government. The appellants moved to the Supreme Court of India.

Whether the term person in S. 3 of the Regulation includes State in its scope? A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959, S.3 Govt. land in scheduled area Transfer by Govt. Permissibility Regulation does not prohibit transfer of Govt. and for its public purpose.

Forest (Conservation) Act,1980, S.2 Mining leases in respect of Grant or renewal It is duty of State Govt. to obtain prior approval of Central Govt. Section 3 of EP Act- Central Govt to take measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.

"3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a Scheduled Tribe- (1) (a) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person. Whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shall be absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a Society, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative is composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes. (b) Until the contrary is proved, any immovable property situated in the Agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, shall be presumed to have been acquired by person or his predecessor in possession through a transfer, made to him by a member of a Scheduled Tribe.

Whether the Regulation would apply to transfer of Government land to a nontribal? 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 Section 2 of the FC Act? Whether the leases are in violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986

 Majority View:- (Per K. Ramaswamy, J.) The word person in S.3 must be construed in a broader perceptivity, unless the statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, exempts the State from the operation of the Act as against the State and would include State Government. Transfer of land in a Scheduled Area by way of lease, for mining purpose in favor of non-tribals stands prohibited by para 5(2)(b) of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 3 of the Regulation.
Justice J.Pattanaik recorded in the minority Judgement in the Samatha Case that "in my considered opinion the expression 'person' should have its natural meaning throughout the Section to mean a 'natural person' and it does not include the State".

THE TERM PERSON used in Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation AS A CONTROVERSY

RATIO DECIDENDI

If the word person is interpreted to mean only natural persons, it tends to defeat the object of the Constitution . The word person would include both natural persons as well as juristic person and constitutional Government. This liberal and wider interpretation would maximise allotment of Government land in scheduled area to the tribal to make socio-economic justice assured in the Constitution .

SC Judgement
Majority view: K.Ramaswamy and S.Saghir Ahmad JJ. Minority view: G.B. Pattanaik J.
Transfer of land by the juristic persons or allotment of

land by the State to the non-tribals would stand prohibited, achieving the object of para 5 (2) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and S.3 of the Regulation. 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.

Adverse effect on mining sector and affect the econ dvpmt of the country. The situation of the tribal differ in different States. The tribals may not have infrastructure to scientifically exploit the mineral and other resources for the socioeconomic development of the State. Mining activity being temporary can never be understood to be deprivation of all rights of tribal. A balance is required b/wn exploitation of MR keeping in mind ecology and environment on one hand and dvpmt of the tribal on the other hand. Mere provision of land without any other help will not advance their status, socially or economically. Participation of the tribal in these activities where mineral resources are found will encourage them to think of economic development.

CONCLUSION

Mere provision of land without any other help will not in any way advance their status, socially or economically. Tribal must be made to slowly get into the national mainstream. Keeping the tribal in isolation perpetually without bringing them in the mainstream, by putting a break to the development of the minerals reserves in tribal areas perhaps may be misplaced. It is essential that tribal are encouraged to take active part in nonagricultural activities including mining and any enactment which restrict this may be harmful to the interest of the tribal.

T HANK YOU !!!

PARVATHY K. ROLL NO.21

SEM-VII
BBA. LLB (Hon)