JANABAI Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This is a group of writ petitions in which the petitioners, who are non-tribals, challenge the validity of S.5A of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, "the Act") on the ground that it is violative of the second proviso to Art.31A(1) of the Constitution of India (for short, "the Constitution").

(2.) In fact the whole Act including the Amending Act, by which S.5A was introduced, was challenged in several petitions in this Court, including these writ petitions on the ground that it infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art.14 and the then existing Art.19(1)(f) and Art.31 which were deleted only by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. The validity of the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976, by which the original Act was introduced, was also challenged on the ground that it destroys or damages the basic structure of the Constitution. All these challenges were considered and repelled by me in my previous judgment dt. 29/30-3-1984 in Writ Petitions Nos.1590 of 1977, 1099 of 1980 and 1444 of 1980 in which I held that the impugned Act (original Act) is protected by Art.31A as well as Art.31B of the Constitution. The challenges to the validity of S.5A of the Act was not then considered by me because in those writ petitions the question about the vesting of the land in the State did not arise, since under the impugned orders in those writ petitions the land was transferred from the non-tribal to the tribal who accepted the transfer. When one of these five Writ petitions, viz., the Writ Petition No. 541 of 1978, was placed for admission a rule was issued and the notice was directed to be issued to the Advocate General on 4-4-1984. Thereafter rule was issued in all the remaining four writ petitions. When these cases were listed for final hearing, the learned counsel for the State, Shri A. A. Desai, Advocate, appearing for the Advocate General in Writ petition No. 541 of 1978, accepted the notice for the Advocate General in all the other connected petitions.

(3.) It is not necessary to state in detail the facts in these connected writ petitions because for the purpose of the sole contention canvassed before me in these petitions suffice it to say that in all these petitions the tribal transferor was unwilling to cultivate the suit lands personally and to pay the purchase price as would be determined under S.3(4) of the Act, and therefore, the learned authorities under the Act directed under S.5A(1) of the Act that the suit lands be taken possession of from the non-tribals in these petitions and that they be vested in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. The sole contention raised before me is whether S. 5A(1) of the Act infringes the second proviso to Art.31 A(1)of the Constitution.