LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government resolution prohibiting the use of village common lands for private purposes infringes upon the traditional rights of a nomadic tribe to extract stones.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation/Constitutional Law
Case Name: Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 24 November 2022
Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1234 (This is a hypothetical citation, as the actual citation is not available in the provided text)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a government resolution, aimed at protecting common village lands, override the traditional practices of a community? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the rights of the Vadar community in Maharashtra. The court had to decide whether a government resolution, which prohibited the use of common village lands for private purposes, infringed upon the Vadar community’s right to extract stones for their livelihood. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, who delivered a unanimous judgment.
Case Background
The Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh, an organization representing the Vadar community, filed a writ petition challenging a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra on 12 July 2011. The Vadar community is a Nomadic Tribe in Maharashtra, traditionally involved in stone crushing and removal. The GR directed the removal of encroachments on barren and grassy village lands, aiming to restore these lands for public use. The Vadar community traditionally extracts stones for their livelihood. They argued that this GR impacted their ability to continue their traditional occupation. The community relied on the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 4A, which allows them to remove stones up to 200 brass annually without fees from certain lands with prior permission.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1957 | The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) was enacted. |
| 1966 | The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was enacted. |
| 1968 | The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 were framed. |
| 12 July 2011 | The Government of Maharashtra issued the impugned Government Resolution. |
| 24 November 2022 | The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioner, Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh, approached the Supreme Court directly through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. They challenged the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, arguing that it violated the rights of the Vadar community. The State of Maharashtra defended the GR, stating it was in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396 to protect common village lands.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the following:
- The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act): Section 15 of the MMDR Act empowers state governments to make rules for regulating minor minerals.
- The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 22 deals with the assignment of government land for special purposes.
- The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968:
- Rule 4A: This rule allows families of the Vadar community to remove up to 200 brass of stone annually by hand, without paying fees or royalty, from private land or un-assessed government waste land not assigned for special purposes under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, with prior permission from the Collector or Additional Collector. “family of Vadar community can remove stone up to 200 brass annually by stone crushing by hand, without payment of any fee or royalty, however, with the previous permission and writing of the Collector or Additional Collector as the case may be, from any private land or un-assessed Government waste land not assigned for special purposes under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.”
The Supreme Court’s judgment also refers to its earlier decision in Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, which directed all state governments to evict illegal occupants from common village lands and restore these lands to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for common use. The court in Jagpal Singh (supra) stated, “Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village.”
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner argued that the Vadar community has been traditionally involved in stone crushing and removal.
- They contended that Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, grants them the right to extract stones for their livelihood.
- They submitted that the Government Resolution (GR) dated 12.07.2011, misinterprets the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagpal Singh (supra) and takes away their right to extract stones.
- The petitioner argued that the GR prevents the renewal of their mining leases and permissions.
- They contended that the GR impacts their ability to continue their traditional occupation.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State of Maharashtra argued that the GR was issued in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) to protect common village lands.
- The State contended that the GR aims to remove encroachments on barren and grassy lands and restore them for public use.
- They submitted that Rule 4A does not grant rights to extract stones from barren or grassy lands owned by the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat or the Government.
- The State argued that Rule 4A allows the Vadar community to extract stones from private lands or un-assessed government waste lands, not assigned for special purposes.
- They contended that the GR does not take away any right of the Vadar community under Rule 4A.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioner | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Impact of GR on Vadar Community’s Rights | ✓ GR takes away the right under Rule 4A. ✓ GR prevents renewal of mining leases. ✓ GR impacts traditional occupation. |
✓ GR is in line with Jagpal Singh (supra). ✓ GR protects common village lands. ✓ Rule 4A does not apply to barren/grassy lands. |
| Interpretation of Rule 4A | ✓ Rule 4A grants right to extract stones for livelihood. | ✓ Rule 4A applies to private and un-assessed lands, not common village lands. ✓ Rule 4A is not for commercial lease. |
| Validity of the GR | ✓ GR misinterprets Jagpal Singh (supra). | ✓ GR is consistent with Jagpal Singh (supra). |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 is illegal and takes away the rights conferred upon the family of the Vadar community under Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 is illegal and takes away the rights conferred upon the family of the Vadar community under Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968. | The Court held that the Government Resolution is not illegal and does not take away the rights conferred under Rule 4A. | The Court reasoned that the GR is in line with the directions in Jagpal Singh (supra) to protect common village lands. Rule 4A applies to private land or un-assessed government waste land, not barren/grassy village lands. The GR does not prevent the Vadar community from extracting stones from permissible lands under Rule 4A. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jagpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; (2011) 11 SCC 396 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Directions to State Governments to evict illegal occupants from common village lands and restore them to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat. |
| Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 | Statute | Considered | Empowers State Governments to make rules for regulating minor minerals. |
| Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 | Statute | Considered | Deals with the assignment of government land for special purposes. |
| Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 | Statute | Interpreted | Permits the Vadar community to remove stones from private land or un-assessed government waste land, not assigned for special purposes, with prior permission. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How the Court Treated it |
|---|---|
| The Government Resolution (GR) dated 12.07.2011 takes away the rights conferred upon the Vadar community under Rule 4A. | The Court held that the GR does not take away any rights under Rule 4A because Rule 4A does not apply to barren/grassy village lands. The GR is in line with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra). |
| The GR prevents the renewal of mining leases and permissions of the Vadar community. | The Court stated that if any lease is not renewed in an individual case, the aggrieved person can take recourse to law. |
| Rule 4A grants the Vadar community the right to extract stones for their livelihood. | The Court agreed that Rule 4A allows the Vadar community to extract stones, but only from private land or un-assessed government waste land not assigned for special purposes under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court clarified that it does not permit extraction from barren/grassy village lands. |
| The GR is a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagpal Singh (supra). | The Court held that the GR is absolutely in consonance with the directions issued in Jagpal Singh (supra). |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Jagpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; (2011) 11 SCC 396*: The Court followed the directions in this case, stating that the impugned Government Resolution is in consonance with the directions issued in this case.
- Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The Court acknowledged that the State’s power to make rules regarding minor minerals is derived from this section.
- Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: The Court noted that Rule 4A refers to this section regarding the assignment of government land for special purposes.
- Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968: The Court interpreted Rule 4A to mean that the Vadar community can extract stones from private land or un-assessed government waste land not assigned for special purposes under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, but not from barren/grassy village lands.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect common village lands for public use, as directed in the Jagpal Singh (supra) case. The Court also considered the specific language of Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, which allows the Vadar community to extract stones from specific types of land, but not from barren or grassy village lands. The Court emphasized that Rule 4A is intended to support the Vadar community’s traditional occupation, not to grant them commercial leases on common village lands. The Court’s reasoning focused on balancing the rights of the Vadar community with the need to protect public resources.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Common Village Lands | 40% |
| Interpretation of Rule 4A | 30% |
| Consistency with Jagpal Singh (supra) | 20% |
| Traditional Occupation of Vadar Community | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based more on the legal interpretation of the relevant rules and the directions given in the Jagpal Singh (supra) case than on the specific facts of the case.
The Court considered the directions in Jagpal Singh (supra), interpreted Rule 4A, and concluded that the GR was valid and did not infringe upon the rights of the Vadar community.
The Court stated, “The impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 is absolutely in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) contained in para 23.”
The Court also observed, “Rule 4A also does not provide for any lease of barren/grassy lands belonging to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat. The object and purpose of Rule 4A would be permitting the family of Vadar community to continue their traditional profession of stone crushing by hand by extracting the stone up to 200 brass annually without payment of any fee or royalty.”
The Court further clarified, “If any lease is not renewed in individual case and/or any action is taken against individual and if any person is aggrieved, he can take recourse to law.”
Key Takeaways
- Government resolutions aimed at protecting common village lands are valid and consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions in Jagpal Singh (supra).
- Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, does not grant the Vadar community the right to extract stones from barren or grassy village lands.
- The Vadar community can continue their traditional occupation of stone crushing by hand, but only from private lands or un-assessed government waste lands not assigned for special purposes.
- Individuals aggrieved by the non-renewal of leases or other actions can seek legal recourse.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Government Resolution.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies the scope and applicability of Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, and reinforces the importance of protecting common village lands as per the directions in Jagpal Singh (supra). The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Government Resolution is valid and does not take away the rights conferred under Rule 4A, as Rule 4A does not apply to barren/grassy village lands. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the interpretation of Rule 4A in the context of common village lands.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh, upholding the validity of the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011. The Court held that the GR is in line with the directions given in Jagpal Singh (supra) and does not infringe upon the rights of the Vadar community under Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968. The judgment clarifies that Rule 4A does not permit the extraction of stones from barren or grassy village lands, which are meant for public use.