Samatha vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh case gave one of the landmark judgement given in the favor of the tribal community which protected the lands in the scheduled areas from illegal mining. Like every citizen, tribal peoples also have the right to life and personal liberty without outside interference.
CITATION:
AIR 1997 SC 3297
BENCH:
- Hon’ble Justice Katikithala Ramaswamy
- Hon’ble Justice S.Saghir Ahmad
- Hon’ble Justice G.B. Patnaik
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
- The Forest Conservation Act, 1980
- Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967
- Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation (1 of 1959) as amended by Regulation II of 1970 (Regulation). Shortly FC Act.
FACTS OF SAMATHA vs. AP CASE:
- Borra reserved forest consisting of 14 villages is a tribal area of Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. The state government gave that land on lease to non-tribal peoples for mining.
- Appellant filed a case against the power of the government of transferring tribal land to non-tribal peoples for mining. High Court dismissed the writ petition and states that statutes do not prohibit the government to leases land for mining purposes to non-tribal peoples, Hence judgement comes in the favor of the state.
- Appellants filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FRAMED:
- Whether the government has the power to transfer the land in the scheduled area to a non-tribal.
- Whether the lease are in the violation of Environment Act, 1986.
- Whether the government has the power to grant mining leases to non-tribal.
SAMATHA v. ANDHRA PRADESH JUDGEMENT:
Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and held that granting a mining lease is a violation of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959.
The state government was ordered to stop all the industry doing mining work and the rule was enacted that the state government cannot decide it, the state must first discuss it with the central government.
Court also held that 20% of the net profit will be reserved for tribal peoples and all the land leased by the government or private agencies is null and void. Therefore, judgement comes in the favor of the tribal community.
CONCLUSION:
It can be concluded that Supreme Court laid some meaning of various terms to protect the rights of both tribal and non-tribal as well as scheduled tribes and also laid emphasis on the protection of the environment.
Found the Samatha vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from constitutional law that will help you in your preparation here >>> CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT
