SAMATA v. St Of AP

7/31/2019 SAMATA v. St Of AP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/samata-v-st-of-ap 1/12

SAMATHA V. STATE OF

ANDHRA PRADESH



In September 1997 the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement in this case that established that governmentlands, tribal lands, and forestlands in the scheduled Areascannot be leased out to non-tribals or to privatecompanies 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 bythe State Mineral Development Corporation or a tribal co-operative if they are in compliance with the Forest Conservation

Act and the Environment Protection Act





Whether the term person in S. 3 of the Regulationincludes “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 prohibittransfer of Govt. and for its public purpose.

Forest (Conservation) Act,1980, S.2– Mining leases in respect of – Grant orrenewal – 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 orexpedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of theenvironment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.



"3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a ScheduledTribe- (1) (a) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, ruleor law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer of immovable

property situated in the Agency tracts by a person. Whether ornot such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shall beabsolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favourof 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 thepossession of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe,shall be presumed to have been acquired by person or hispredecessor in possession through a transfer, made to him by amember of a Scheduled Tribe.



Whether the Regulation would apply totransfer of Government land to a non-tribal?

Whether the Government can grantmining lease of the lands situated inscheduled 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





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 standprohibited, achieving the object of para 5 (2) of theFifth Schedule of the Constitution and S.3 of the

Regulation. The Supreme Court reversed the judgement of High Court and gave the judgementagainst the State Government, cancelled the miningleases 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 socio-

economic development of the State.

Mining activity being temporary can never be understood tobe 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 notadvance 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 non-

agricultural activities including mining and any

enactment which restrict this may be harmful to the

interest of the tribal.



PARVATHY K.

ROLL NO.21

SEM-VII

BBA. LLB (Hon)

Documents

SAMATA v. St Of AP