Advertisement
In a significant move, the Bombay High Court upheld rules that restrict the transfer of tribal agricultural land to non-tribals, reinforcing legal provisions that have existed for over two decades. The court ruled that these rules, rooted in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, are valid and designed to protect the interests of tribals. The verdict came after a challenge questioning the constitutionality of a clause in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and its later amendments, especially those made in 1975. The ruling maintains that only non-agricultural use is permissible in tribal-to-non-tribal land transfers, a move the court found both legally and socially justified.
The Bombay High Court, recently upheld the legitimacy of rules established over 20 years ago that limit the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals solely for non-agricultural use, as per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules. Advertisement
The bench, comprising Justices A S Chandurkar and Rajesh S Patil, held that these provisions, which safeguard tribal agricultural land, were aimed at ensuring the continued protection of tribal interests. The ruling was part of a 28-page judgment in a matter raised by Bapurao Mukhne, a resident of Mokhada in Palghar district, who had challenged the regulation.
The petition was presented by advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, who questioned the constitutional validity of a specific clause in the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975. This clause allows the sale of tribal land to non-tribals only for non-agricultural purposes, rejecting agricultural use as a valid reason for such transfers.
Chandrachud contended that the government's insistence on limiting such transfers to non-agricultural purposes unfairly burdened buyers, leading to unnecessary limitations on the right to reside or establish occupancy on such land.
However, State Advocate General Birendra Saraf argued that the rule ensured financial resources were accessible to tribals, since only non-agricultural activity by non-tribals would be allowed. He suggested that agricultural use by non-tribals would fail to empower tribal sellers financially, as many such transfers in the past had rendered tribal sellers economically disadvantaged while empowering wealthier non-tribal farmers in the vicinity.
The High Court noted that allowing such transfers for agricultural use would essentially defeat the rule's purpose. The court clarified that the restriction was not unconstitutional and did not breach Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Indian Constitution.
The court also examined the historical intent behind the rule. In 1974, the State undertook a study of the impact of tenancy laws and, in response, amended the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code the following year. These amendments were specifically intended to curb growing trends of tribal exploitation and the gradual erosion of tribal land ownership due to sales to non-tribals.
By restricting land transfers to non-agricultural uses only, the court reinforced the importance of preserving tribal land ownership and autonomy. The decision reflects a deep awareness of historical injustices and a proactive approach to preventing further economic marginalisation. For policymakers, this judgment serves as a reminder that development must proceed hand in hand with social equity, particularly for communities historically sidelined in land ownership and rights.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
