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 ab original 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
persons, 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
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 Schedules 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 filled 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 applications. 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.”
