Chapter
3
The
Tribal and Land Issues
on tribals have continually opposed enactment of Regulations
favouring tribals. Upholding
the Regulation 1 of 1970 (which prohibits land transfers between non-tribals in
Scheduled Areas) the Supreme Court of India stated:
"The Community cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the
competition between tribals and the non-tribals partakes the character of a
race between a handicapped one legged person (and a able bodied person)".
While acknowledging the honourable intentions of the Court, the
ground realities, more often than not, are rather different. Despite accorded protection on paper,
lopsided government orders and their implementation of the Courts orders has
placed the tribal in an 'heads I win - tails you lose' situation.
Government officials maintain they have implemented Orders and
assigned over land to tribals as per the
records. Although the act by a
non-tribal, of persisting in occupation of land after eviction under the LTR of
1970 as amended in 1978 is a cognizable offence, punishable by a one year
imprisonment. It is ironic that not a
single non-tribal has been convicted so far.
Authorities should either hand over land to the tribal or prosecute the
non-tribal. Neither is done. Often, when
Courts order transfer of land from non-tribal to tribal, Revenue officials
wantonly procrastinate in handing over such land to the tribal until the
non-tribal uses other grounds to secure a stay against the transfer. There are examples, where Revenue officials have
colluded with non-tribals and delayed handing over lands fro over seven
months. The many loopholes in
administrative lines of control in
monitoring tribal land restoration need plugging.
To materialize the objectives of the 1946 and 1949 Regulations, the
Government of Hyderabad instituted a new department called the Social Service
Department, attached to the Revenue Department and headed by the adviser for
tribes and backward classes. This department consisted of a number of gazetted
officers, as well as of social service inspectors and Co-ordinators, all of
whom were posted in tribal areas. Existing special tribes officers, who were in
the rank of Deputy Collector and had been drawn from the Revenue Department,
were included in the Social Service Department cadre. After gaining administrative experience, many
of these directly recruited graduates were promoted to gazetted posts and
ultimately, replaced the Special Tribes Officers drawn from the Revenue Department.
As per the 1959 Regulation which replaced the 1946 and 1949 regulations, the
task of monitoring of protective legislation for tribals is now under the
Tribal Welfare Department and Statutory authority is vested in Revenue
Officials. Although the primary
tribunal, the Special Deputy Collector's (SDC) court is part of the ITDA, the
project Officer seldom oversees the SDC's work.
Designating the Project Officer as the Additional District Magistrate
serves only ornamental purposes. The
Working Group Report on Scheduled Tribes under the Eighth Five Year Plan
observed that orders of Government, designating the Project Officer as the
leader of single-line administration at the ITDA level should have been issued
under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, Collectors have targets for distribution
of land under the Land Ceiling (Reforms) Act, but none for tribal land
restoration. Coordinated team work among
the District Collector, Sub-Collector, SDC, ITDA and the Forest Department
alone can ensure any progress in this.
Such team work, unfortunately, has been the exception rather than the
rule.
To compound these problems, posts of the Project Officer, ITDA remain unfilled
in several Districts.
The Tribal Welfare Department initiated a survey of agency lands in
1987, through the Department of Revenue and Survey and Settlements, and the
Forest Departments. A to H records
were prepared as a result of the survey.
In 1990, the Government created the post of Officer on Special Duty
(OSD) to head the survey.
The OSD would have been far more effective in the office of the Commissioner,
Survey, Settlements and Land Records (CSS & LR) rather than the Tribal
Welfare Department, where he was posted. The Revenue Department 'cold storaged'
these A to H records and reports, and no subsequent exercise based on the
findings of the survey was initiated. The circumstances resonate the apathetic
and lack of will in the Government to foster change. The 1949 Regulation prescribed the abolition
of patel, patwari and watans in any notified tribal area and the replacement
of non-tribal village officers with tribals.
However, this was not implemented immediately. 1985 saw the abolition of the village
officers posts all over the state. The
village officers then moved the Supreme Court against the abolishment. The Court directed the Government to take up
all eligible officers to the post of village officers. Meanwhile, the State government, under the 5th
Schedule, reserved these posts in agency areas for scheduled tribes. When the District Collectors failed to execute
the Court's directive, non-tribal village officers sought redress from the
State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The
SAT passed orders allowing eligible officers to continue in their posts.
Such officers remain in their posts in some places till date.
The Tribal Welfare Department allots funds for procurement of lands
of non-tribals, for distribution to land less tribes. Often, absentee
landlords, who abandon fallow lands benefit from such purchases by the
department. Such absentee landlords continue
to enjoy the benefits of owning land in Scheduled areas. The whole exercise of protecting these areas
and prohibiting land transactions was to maintain their essential character, as
one where communities wholly dependent on the land lived in harmony, sharing
resources and not acquiring exclusive rights over it. When the owner of land no longer lives on it
and does not uses it as a means of survival, he looks upon it as a commodity to
maximize monetary gain. Leasing of such lands to non-tribals has become
widespread in agency areas. Such leases violate the LTR and invariably lead to
deforestation, mining other commercial uses that is inconsistent with agency
and forest laws in force. No action has
been initiated against such absentee landlords under the LTR. The Andhra Pradesh Mahals (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation of 1969 defined the term possession to
mean possession or cultivation. This is grievous error. The definition, rather, should have implied
possession and cultivation.
Various departments, including Tribal Welfare, acquire tribal lands
for construction of residential schools, ashram schools, irrigation facilities,
housing colonies etc. Payment of
compensation takes decades and alternative land is not provided. In the West Godavari agency alone, payments
of compensation t the tune of Rs.28 lakhs are due to tribals for lands acquired
as far back as 1978. While the Government budgets funds for instant disbursement to non-tribals
offering their unproductive lands, it evades payment to tribals whose lands are
acquired and are evicted, invoking the principle of larger 'public
interest'. Whereas outside the agency,
when ousters file cases in Civil Courts seeking compensation, Court decrees are
implemented even to the extent of confiscation of government properties (such
as furniture in Revenue offices, vehicles belonging to the District Collector,
etc.), agency Courts do not heed petitions filed by tribals against the
authorities. Often, authorities make
tribals and their areas the targets of maximum loss. Several tribals are likely to be displaced by
impending submergence under the proposed Polavaram dam project. While the command areas of the reservoir lie
in non-tribal areas, the government proposes to compensate the forest land to
be submerged with alternative revenue land in Addateegala and Y.Ramavaram
Mandals. Revenue lands in these Mandals
are already scarce. Nonetheless, the
government proceeded to hand over land to the Forest Department.
ADMINISTRATIVE APATHY
The average time frame for disposal of LTR cases in the
SDC and District Collectors' courts is ten
years. Illegal occupants of tribal
lands exploit this delay to manipulate the system and thwart the process. The
tribal appellant is bankrupted in the prolonged litigation. While the Government raises optimism through
legislation, officials trap tribals in the 'merry-go-round' of the land
restoration game. One can often see aged tribals representing to officials about
restoration of lands of their parents, lost to the non-tribals. One also often
hears of the demise of the tribal who waited in vain for implementation of
Orders passed in his favor long ago.
Such are the grim realities.
Often, as soon as a case is filed, non-tribals obtain stay orders from
the High Court, usually until pending cases are disposed of by the appropriate
lower Courts. This invariably signifies delay of a decade, undermining the
resoluteness of the tribal, who loses faith in the system. Although standing instructions necessitate
prompt filing of counter affidavits to Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the instruction are never complied with.
The ITDA has appointed Standing Counsel
in the High Court for Adilabad districts and assigned some cases in East
Godavari District. With every change in
officials, contact with the Counsel have to be built again, which rarely
happens.
The restrictions on purchase of Tribal land were first imposed by
the Agency Tracts Interests and Land Transfer Act of 1917. Under this Act tribal land could be sold or
purchased with "permission" of the District Collector. The Act, however does not qualify the word
"permission" adequately -- permission to whom - tribal or non-tribal,
or both -- and the matter still stands unresolved. This uncertainty needs to be
taken up with the judiciary for clarifications.
While there are no records of any such 'permissions' with the
Collector's Office, thousands of permissions, purportedly issued by District
Collectors under this provision are in existence. In 1929, the Collector, East Godavari,
reported to the Government in Madras, that the registers prepared by him
showing the "present enjoyers" of lands in the Yellavaram Division brought to
light a very large number of transactions between plainsmen and members of hill
tribes by which land had passed from the hill tribes into the occupation of
plainsmen..
These transfers need investigation and fraudulent permissions weeded out. The SDC's offices are often facetious in
filing cases. Certain Sub-Collectors,
holding charge of SDC earlier conducted courts in villages and disposed off
matters. The Tribal Welfare Department
should motivate the SDCs to conduct such village courts.
The Government constituted Special Tribunals (SDC, Tribal Welfare) in
1976 in all the Districts (having Scheduled areas) to restore lands to
tribals. Though such restoration was to
be executed with effect from 1917, few revenue offices have these official
records. By the time these Tribunals
were constituted, settlement of lands under Settlement Regulations 2 of 1969
and 2 of 1970 were already complete. The orders of the Special Tribunals should
have preceded these settlements. The Courts have taken the stand that the
Tribunals' orders cannot override the Settlement Orders.
Another example of ambiguity used by the government is that while the appellate
authority for claims against Settlement Officers is the District Court, for
(tribals) people in agency tracts, the authority is Director of Settlements,
situated far away in Hyderabad!.
Although Mokasas in non-tribal
areas were abolished in 1963, mokasas
in agency areas were abolished only as late as 1990.
Despite abolition of such mokasas, these
lands are yet to be settled. A
litigation concerning payment of compensation to mokasadars in Rampachodavarm
Revenue Division has been used by officials as a stay on abolition and
subsequent settlement.
Non-tribals have been legitimizing sale of land through unregistered
sale agreements purported to have been entered into before the 1/70 Amendment
to the APLTR came into force. They
produce certificates from village officers showing they have taken possession
of land on the very date of the Agreement. While village officers can incorporate
mutations in land records only under orders of higher authorities, these are
not forthcoming. The LTR authorities,
however, accept such 'agreements' and 'possession certificates' and drop
cases. Here, and in particular, cases
initiated suo moto, legitimacy has
been lent to non-tribal holdings. Mandal
Revenue Officers (MROs), as authorities under the Record of Rights (ROR)
programme, also ratify unregistered sale agreements. Collectors too, do not respond to requests of
the LTR authorities to notify such cases.
Some States have devised measures to check such holdings. In Madhya Pradesh for example, it is
mandatory for non-tribals to submit declarations of their holdings at the time
of promulgation of the regulation pertaining to tribal land restoration. These could then be scrutinized, and where
irregular, transferred to tribals after acquisition. The declarations also prevented the
non-tribals from increasing their holding.
Likewise, Tamil Nadu has constituted a Tribunal which looks into similar
matters. Maharashtra has a proviso whereby
lands could be acquired by payment of compensation to the tune of 48 times the
value of the land to compensate for efforts towards land development. The funds for this can be raise from the
Tribal Welfare Department and released as a loan or subsidy to tribals. Such 'safety valves' and checks and balances
should be introduced in Andhra Pradesh too.
Even today, the Government of Andhra Pradesh can amend the LTR to the
effect that all non-tribals must file declarations on their possession of lands
along with documents.
Even non-tribals work through the processes in the SDC's Courts by
suppression of transactions registered after 1970. Since the Court has no record of registered
transactions, it is left with little alternative but to accept and legitimaze
unregistered sale deeds produced by non-tribals. Almost invariably, LTR orders that were
dismissed or dropped conclude with
"an appeal against this order before the agent to the
Government......lies with in a period of two months from the date of the order"
The authorities have never filed appeals against the SDC's
orders. Deputy Tahsildars,
(administratively) subordinate to the SDC, never appeal to the Agent against
the SDC's orders, abandoning a mechanism of legal redress from errors or
omissions made by the SDC. Use of this
mechanism for review of the SDC's orders needs to be made. Another intriguing fact is that while
authorities file appeals against awards under Land Ceiling, similar appeals are
not filed by authorities under the LTR.
The SDC, in his orders against land transfer through unregistered sale
deeds in hundreds of cases, quoted a
judgement of the High Court
"....... the validity for
want of Registration under the Indian Registration Act or otherwise of the
transfers made prior to Section 3(1) of Regulation 1/59, or its amendment
Regulation II of 1963 or Regulation 1/70 coming into force cannot be
adjudicated upon under Section 3(2) of the refeence and the same has to be
challenged in an appropriate forum constituted for deciding disputes relating
to immovable property covered by such transfers."
While the 'appropriate forum' in the High Court
judgement is apparently the Civil Court of the Agent, no such challenge has
been filed before the Agent's Courts.
Revenue Officials, while executing orders, act with undue haste in
evicting tribals. Whereas, on the other
hand, the pretext of 60 days appeal time is used when the Order demands handing
over of land from a non-tribal to a tribal.
Note should be taken of the fact that 60 days appeal time is granted to
aggrieved parties to file appeals, and not
to Revenue Officials to delay implementation of Orders. Stay orders are
often conditional. Conditionality's may include stay of eviction till
completion of enquiries, stay until enquiry results are produced before court,
stay until appellate (Agent or Social Welfare Department) Court disposes the
case, stay until standing crop is harvested, and so on. Regardless of such conditionality, the term 'stay' is what counts on the ground, and
as such, revenue officials interpret such order as unconditional stays and indefinitely shelve all proceedings pending
further orders. On the other hand, in
cases where non-tribals have been evicted, such stay orders become
i9nfructuous. Also, where land has
already been handed over to tribals, such stay orders become infructuous. Here, revenue officials, exploiting the
mystique associated with the term stay, hound
tribals out of such land. Such 'stays'
are used to significant and powerful advantage by non-tribals. Stays are obtained at virtually very stage -
when notice is issued by SDC's Court, when a case is allowed, after appeals are
filed, after judgements are pronounced, after filing of revision petitions, after
filing cases before the High Court Division bench - such proceedings can last
indefinitely! Moreover, even on losing a case in the High Court, non-tribals
file fresh petitions on altered grounds and start proceedings anew.
In Chinnemplem and B.Sivaramapatnam of Gangavaram
mandal, non-tribals were in possession of 74.74 acres and 111.98 acres of land
respectively. Suo moto procedings were
initiated by the Government under the APLTR for acquisition of this land. While 46.55 acres of the land thus acquired
in Chinnempalem was handed over to tribals, the government authorities ignored
to hand over the remaining 27.18 acres.
This continued to remain in possession of non-tribals. Subsequent orders of the Mobile Magistrate to
disposses tribals from part of the land led to clashes between tribals who had
been inducted into the land and the non-tribals continuing adjacently. In B.Sivaramapatnam, violent clashes and the
murder of a tribal resulted. This led to
police intervention, and subsequently, payment of compensations to be tune of
Rs.2,00,000 under the provisions of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Nonetheless, government authorites remained
blind to the root casue of the continually tense situation, the issue of
handing over of the remaining land. It,
till date remains to be handed over to the tribals. In the case of B.Sivaramapatnam, the MRO
reported
that as per the High Court directions in the matter, he has issued Section 7
notices to the non-tribals and that Section 6A notices are yet to be issued for
eviction of the non-tribals.
While standing orders limiting time available for filing
of counters to such stays exist, MROs and the SDC do not insist on production
of affidavits along with these stay orders.
The absence of affidavits provides an excuse to delay filing of conters,
and thus counters invariably take a long time to be filed. Often, tribals are not even named as
respondents in land cases, keeping them in the dark. This situation is further complicated by
unlawful police intervention, at the instigation of non-tribals.
Each survey settlement has deprived the tribal of more
and more land. The 1902, 1032 and 1970 surveys resulted in
allotment of more and more land in favor of non-tribals. The records of the first Settlement of 1902 are
no longer available with the Government.
Also, since the authorities do not have records of the transactions
between 1917 and 1932, the 1932 Resurvey Settlement is treated as the basis for
land restoration proceedings under the 1917 Act. Most non-tribals have been using receipts
issued by muttadars to prove land
ownership. The issuance of such receipts
by muttadars is against the 1917 Act and the 1959
Regulation. The Settlement Officer
should have pronounced such receipts as being invalid and rejected them. A different procedure to authenticate land
ownership needs to be evolved by the government, before settlement of lands
under the erstwhile mokasas. On August 8, 1996, the government appointed a
Settlement Officer to expedite matters under Regulation 2 of 1970 pending with
the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) - cum - Settlement Officer in Kovvuru in
West Godavari. While over two decades
have gone by since the settlement operations under Regulation 2 of 1970 have
been completed, the government has once again appointed a Settlement Officer to
enable non-tribals to obtain more pattas. Ironically, all the 161 petitioners in the
present settlement operation, which is politically motivated, are non-tribals
who filed petitions seeking pattas only
in 1995.
In 1990, the government delegated powers of Director, Settlement to
District Collectors, to empower them to enquire into pattas issued in erstwhile muttahs
and mahals under Regulation 2 of
1969 and to pass appropriate orders. This delegation of powers should also be
extended to cover enquiry into pattas
issued in erstwhile estates under Regulation 2 of 1970. While some work towards cancellation of pattas has been initiated in the
erstwhile muttahs, no such
initiatives have been taken for the mahals.
Some ingenious
non-tribals have consolidated their purchase of land in tribal areas by
fraudulently obtaining Scheduled Tribe certificates from Revenue
authorities. Scheduled Tribal
certificates issued by revenue authorities to the non-tribal Telis in
Rajavommangi mandal on the strength of their claims that they were Gond Telis. This was corrected only after 20 years of
these non-tribals having enjoyed the benefits of tribal status. The already complex and delicate task of Land
restoration gets further complicated where non-tribals have such forged
certificates. The issue of these
certificates and subsequent judgements thereon have reached shocking
proportions in the East Godavari District.
High Court Judgments in this regard are inconsistent and warrant
re-examination.
The District Collector, East Godavari cancelled the Scheduled Tribe
status of the Kanigiri family on 2.8.1988. The family moved High Court which remanded
the case, with directions to allow the family an reasonable opportunity to be
heard. A new Collector in charge then
initiated a fresh enquiry into the matter and delivered an inane order, holding
the parents to be tribals but the children to be non-tribal. Aggrieved by this order, the children moved
the High Court once again. A single
Judge of the High Court struck down the absurd conclusion and held that if the
parents were tribals, the children too were tribals. However, the Court was not informed that the
fresh enquiry was conducted by suppressing the finding of the earlier
enquiry. A Writ Appeal filed by SAKTI in
the matter. The Court indicated the officer for not
applying his mind and subsequently remanded the case for fresh trial. In the meanwhile, the Sub-collector who had
originally initiated proceedings against the family in 1987, was posted in the
same District as the District Collector.
The Kanigiri family have pleaded that the now District Collector should
not be allowed to take up enquiries as he would be biased by his earlier
actions, and have obtained a stay.
While the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, had proposed total prohibition of land transfer even among tribals in
1977, this has not materialized so far. The hazards of such transfers (which would
lead to a proliferation of benami
transfers) were recognized as early as 1926 when the first such proposal to ban
transfers among tribals was mooted. Although the rules in force, necessitate the
District Collector's ratification for land transfers between the tribals, affluent
tribals are pressurizing the government through TAC resolutions
to instruct Collectors to speed up the ratification of such transactions.
Benami leases have become the order of
the day. In Vishakapatnam District, LTR
authorities at Paderu cancelled a lease issued for granite mining on the
revelation that that a benami transaction
was involved. Revenue officials recommend - and mining
authorities sanction leases keeping local people in darkness. Once the licence
is issued, they purchase the local people.
Tribals should be consulted and Panchayats should accept the mining as
per the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act,
1996. The authorities should see how
such procedures can be operationalized.
Such consultations are already taking place during the ROR surveys; but,
unless organized, people are not in a position to assert themselves. In the absence of peoples awareness, any
provision of law can be manipulated by exploiters, in connivance with
officials. Villagers do not know how
many tribal certificates were issued to outsiders in their village; there is no
mechanism to inform people of these.
Such benamis have also begun
mining tribal lands for semi-precious stones.
To check such benamis, SAKTI
helped tribals to form a mining cooperative.
Subsequently, the P.O., ITDA, was made the Chairman. A condition was also laid down that only
laborers working for 200 man-days in a year were eligible for renewal of
membership to the cooperative. The P.O. then
applied for leases on all government lands, bit his successor did not pursue
the matter, and the society became dormant.
The International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) provides funds for the development of land in
the uplands of tribal areas. In the absence of restrictions on transfer of land
between tribals, this 'development' is likely to be cornered by the more
affluent tribals.
Poorer tribals are being driven to the wall by the these developments, reeling
as they already are under the onslaught of non-tribal encroachers. The well meaning proposals to prohibit land
transactions between tribals have not been pursued. IFAD has continued to pump
money into such projects where the ultimate beneficiaries would not be the
originally targeted poor tribals who developed the lands. Already, the lands of Konda Reddis, irrigated
under the D.V.Kota village tank in Marredumilli Mandal have been purchased by
Valmikis.
In 1983, a single Judge bench of the High Court passed order to the
effect that land transferred after 1970 should be restored to the tranferor.
Many non-tribals, who had sold their lands to another non-tribal have regained
possession of such lands by filing cases in the SDC's Court. In 1993, a Division Bench of the High Court
held that since such transfer are void, the land should go to the Government
and therefrom to tribals.
The earlier transfer matters are yet to be reopened on the strength of this
judgment.
The Series of G.Os. passed from 1969 reflect shifts and
inconsistencies in administrative thought.
The G.O.Ms.971 of 7.10.1969 prohibited assignment of government land to
non-tribals. This was followed by
G.O.Ms.129 in 1970, quashing the exemption to non-tribal 'small farmers' from
the purview of the APLTR of 1959. A
shift in this progression occurred with the passing of G.O.Ms.41 on 12.1.1971
protecting non-tribals in possession of land for over 10 years from eviction
. The date of passing of this G.O.is
significant, since it is clearly in violation of the Amendment 1 of 1970 to the APLTR of 1959. This shift assumed ominous dimensions with
the issuance of G.O.Ms.951 in 1974, ordering protection of Harijans living in
Scheduled Areas. This order was further strengthened by
G.O.Ms.634 in the same year, enabling the acquisition of lands for construction
of houses for harijans.
Two posts of Commissioners for Tribal Welfare need to be
constituted, one for protective regulations with statutory and suo moto powers (while the Secretary,
Tribal Welfare has revision powers, he lacks oversight powers), and another for
development. The former could be posted
either with the CSS & LR, or with the General Administration Department
(whose guidelines are binding on all other Departments). The Director and the Secretary of the Tribal
Welfare Department, not being authorities under any Statute, are not named as
respondents in Courts and thus remain blissfully ignorant of the pronouncements
of the Courts. As detailed in the
preceding chapters, some attempts have been made over the years through legislation,
and occasionally, by courts. However,
implementation on the ground has been superficial, and often ignored or even
subverted. Rigorous and sustained
efforts within the existing frame work are necessary to render justice to
tribals. Unfortunately, inasmuch as the
existing mechanisms are concerned, this is easier said than done. One can only hope that the Government does
not completely abandon the tribal cause by withdrawing or diluting the existing
protective legislation. Protecting,
strengthening and expanding the tribals resource base is the need of the hour;
repeal of the 1970 Regulation would strike out at this resource base and reduce
the tribal to a landless laborer in his own homeland. Despite professed ideals of a democratic
welfare state with constitutional safeguards to tribals, the approach to tribal
problems has been no better than that of the
colonialists of America and Australia which resulted in marginalization
of the Red Indian and near extinction of Australian aborigine. As Nirad Chowdhary expressed it, "What would
be seen with most regret would be not the simple extinction of the aboriginal
but his enslavement and degradation."
Appendix 1
CLASSIFICATION OF A-H RECORDS
|
1-1
|
A1
|
Sivaijama
occupation of Government lands by tribals
|
|
1-2
|
A2
|
Sivaijama
occupation of Government lands by non-tribals.
|
|
2 - 1
|
B1
|
Government
lands assigned on 'D' farm pattas to tribals
|
|
2 - 2
|
B2
|
Government
lands assigned on 'D' farm pattas to non-tribals
|
|
|
C1
|
Particulars
of lands granted on patta by
Settlement Dept. under Regulation 2 of 1970
|
|
|
C2
|
Particulars
of lands granted on patta by
Settlement Dept. under Regulation 2 of 1970
|
|
|
D1
|
Particulars
of lands granted on patta by
Settlement Dept. under Regulation 2 of 1970 to tribals prior to Regulation 2
of 1970
|
|
|
D2
|
Particulars
of lands granted on patta by Settlement Dept. under Regulation 2 of 1970 to
non-tribals prior to Regulation 2 of 1970
|
|
3
|
E
|
Government
waste lands available for cultivation
|
|
4
|
F
|
Names of
landless poor tribals
|
|
5 - 1
|
G1
|
Details of
lands with forest growth for which pattas were granted to tribals
|
|
|
G2
|
Details of
lands with forest growth for which pattas were granted to non-tribals
|
|
|
H
|
Abstract of
land holdings in Mandal of both tribals and non-tribals
|
Appendix 2
Laws Applicable
TELANGANA REGION
1.
Records of Rights Act, 1971
2.
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas
Land Transfer Regulation, 1959
3.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950
4.
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land
(Prohibition on Transfer) Act, 1977 and rules issued thereunder
5.
Andhra Pradesh Land
Encroachment Act, 1905
6.
Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules
7.
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Land Revenue Act, 1317F
8.
Inam Abolition Act
9.
Indian Stamp Act
10.
Andhra Pradesh Mahals
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969
ANDHRA REGION
1.
Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act
2.
Andhra Pradesh Revenue Rules
3.
Record of Rights Act, 1971
4.
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land
(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and rules issued thereunder.
5.
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas
Land Transfer Regulation, 1959
6.
Andhra Pradesh Land
Encroachment Act, 1905
7.
Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules
8.
Andhra Pradesh Muttas
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969
9.
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas
Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970
Appendix 3
Abstract of Letter from TCR & TI to Secretary,
Social Welfare
D.O.Lr.No.1/77/75-TRI-C1 Dt.27.10.1977
Sub: A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer
Regulation, 1959 - Amendment for lifting the restrictions on Land Transfer by
non-tribals where the tribal population in the Scheduled Area is 25% or less of
the total population of the village according to 1971 Census - Regarding.
Ref: D.L.R.No.819/F1/73-36, Dt.7.10.1977
from Under Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh.
With reference to your D.O. letter cited
I am to submit the information on the following in duplicate as desired.
1.
The number of villages, their
extent and population in existing Scheduled Areas together with maps (District
wise).
2.
The District wise list of
villages that could be affected by the proposal under consideration where the
tribal population is 25% or less as per 1971 Census.
3.
The date regarding the pattern
of land ownership as between the tribals and non-tribals with the areas
involved in the villages covered under this proposal in the taluks of
Parvatipuram (Srikakulam District), Polavaram (West Godavari District),
Kothagudem (Khammam District), Mulugu (Warangal District), Utnooru and Boath
(Adilabad District) and Achampet (Mahaboobnagar District).
The Proposed amendment will facilitate
non-tribal owners to transfer their legal possessions (immovable property) to
non-tribals so that they can get proper price for their immovable properties
situated in Scheduled Areas......... For instance, in Parvatipuram Taluk as
much as 52% of the land in the three Scheduled villages covered under proposal
is held by tribals, even though the Scheduled Tribe population in these
villages constitutes only 14.5% to the total population............ Even though
the proposed amendment may not directly and immediately affect the interests of
tribals in land it may have wider repercussions in other Schedule villages in
the long run............ The proposed amendment may throw open gates for fresh
immigration of non-tribals into these villages, who after purchasing lands from
non-tribals settled down in these villages.
If past experience is any indication, the new settlers may acquire lands
from tribals through benami transactions................ However, if the amendment is to be carried
out, it may not be given retrospective effect as it may be used to legalize the
illegal occupancies of non-tribals and may also render the work of the
encroachment authorities difficult in taking further action in the cases
pending with them.................
