The Supreme Court has ruled that indigenous tribes and aboriginals are entitled to sell their lands in non-scheduled areas to non-tribals too in case of exigencies such as marriage and settlement of loans, provided they are not
sham transactions.

Under the Constitution and statutory laws, tribal land cannot be sold to non-tribals.

“Respondent numbers 2 to 5 (tribals) had ownership over 6.290 hectares of land out of which they intended to sell 4.440 hectares, for which they had executed an agreement to sell with respondent number 1 (non-tribal buyer) for that portion of the land which was not in cultivation.

The court said: “The sale was intended for generating funds for the marriage of children, settlement of loans, while retaining a portion of the land which was asserted to be sufficient for their requirements, the owners also having possession of lands in other villages. The price offered was also stated to be far more than the market value.

“The market value of the land was found to be ₹1,75,000 per bigha, thus putting the total value at ₹38,31,720; whereas the total consideration paid was ₹45 lakh, far
in excess.”

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government challenging an order of the high court upholding the sale transactions executed by the tribals in favour of the respondent Dinesh Kumar.

It was the case of the state that a single judge of the high court had erroneously interfered with the revisional order passed by the commissioner, Ujjain division, who had exercised suo motu powers under Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, wherein by an order dated September 14, 2021, he had set aside the order of the additional collector granting permission for sale of the tribals’ land.

According to the state, the sale was illegal as Section 165 regulated the rights on transfer of the bhumiswami (tribal landlords) to protect and preserve the land of tribals, who could be easily induced to part with the property without being aware of
the consequences.

Rejecting the state’s argument, the Supreme Court said Section 165 (6) of the code specifically referred to the rights of transfer, obviously of landowners, wherein Sub-section (6) dealt with the land belonging to the members of the indigenous tribes (referred to in the statute as aboriginal).

The bench said Sub-section (6) of Section 165 had two limbs in clause (i) and
clause (ii).

Clause (i) provides a blanket prohibition on the transfer of land situated in an area predominantly inhabited by indigenous tribes, as notified by the government, and owned by a person belonging to that indigenous tribe to persons other than that of the specific indigenous tribe. In other words, it cannot be sold to non-tribals.

“This (restriction) does not apply in the instant case since admittedly the land is not situated in a notified area in Ratlam district… In the district of Ratlam, the notification applies only to two tehsils, namely Sailan and Bhajna.

“...We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed,” the bench said.