1996 INSC 0043
                                               Keshabo and Another

                                                           Vs

                                              State of M.P. and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 1996

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      08.01.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 7-5-1992 of the Division Bench of the
High Court of M.P in MP No. 1499 of 1992. The admitted position is that Section 165 of the M.P.
Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "the Code") was enforced in Gariaband area from 2-10-1959 by way
of an amendment and publication in the Gazette. The sale of the land of the Bhumiswami rights in
favour of the appellants by the Adivasi (Scheduled Tribe) Somu Gond was made on 23-12-1960.
Ultimately, the Board of Revenue in its order dated 16-1-1992 in Revision Case No. 150 of 1990
confirming the order of Additional Commissioner dated 23-9-1990 held that even prior to 1976,
even under the unamended Section 165(6) of the Code it is mandated that the purchaser should
obtain prior permission from the competent authority for alienation of the Bhumiswami right of the
Adivasis. Since the permission was not taken, the sale was held void. The High Court by its order
dated 7-5-1992 affirmed the view of the Board of Revenue.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the notification under sub-section (6)
of Section 165 was published in 1977 and the sale having been made in 1960, the finding of the
tribunal that the sale is void, is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention. Section 165(6)
reads thus :

                  "165. (6) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) the right of Bhumiswami
                  belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe the State
                  Government by a notification in that behalf for the whole or part of the area to which
                  this code applies shall not be transferred to a person not belonging to such tribe
                  without the permission of a Revenue Office not below the rank of Collector, given
                  for reasons to be recorded on writing."

4. A reading of this sub-section would also clearly indicate that the Bhumiswami right belonging to
a tribe, which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification
in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which the Code applies, shall not be transferred to
a non-tribal person, not belonging to such tribe, without prior permission of the Revenue Officer not
below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing. The Board of Revenue has
pointed out that prior to the amendment in writing. The Board of Revenue has pointed out that prior
to the amendment in 1976, obtaining permission for alienation of the land was a condition
precedent. If that condition precedent, viz., obtaining prior permission from the competent authority
for reasons to be recorded therein was not taken, the sale in contravention of the Act, therefore,
becomes void. It is a welfare legislation made to protect the ownership rights in the land of a
Scheduled Tribe to effectuate the constitutional obligation of Articles 39(b) and 46 of the
Constitution read with the Preamble. Economic empowerment of a tribal to provide economic
democracy is the goal. Prevention of their exploitation due to ignorance or indigency is a
constitutional duty under Article 46. Agricultural land gives economic status to the tiller. Therefore,
any alienation of land in contravention of the above objectives is void. It is contended that the
application under Section 170(1) should have been filed within two years from the date of sale.
Since the application was not so filed, the authorities were not right in directing entertainment of the
application. It is not in dispute that the authority has jurisdiction suo motu to go into the violation of
the statutory provisions. Even otherwise, since it is a beneficial legislation, the authorities are bound
to give effect to constitutional policy; they are not devoid of jurisdiction, even if it is filed beyond
limitation to entertain the application. It is a matter of public policy and of discretion. Under these
circumstances, we do not think there is any substantial question of law warranting interference.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.