In which judicial case, the Supreme Court opined that government land in scheduled areas, land of tribals and forest land cannot be leased to non-tribals or private companies, for mining or industrial works and such works can only be done by tribals or government undertaking.

In which judicial case, the Supreme Court opined that government land in scheduled areas, land of tribals and forest land cannot be leased to non-tribals or private companies, for mining or industrial works and such works can only be done by tribals or government undertaking. Correct Answer Samata vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

The correct answer is Samata vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Key Points

  • Samata an NGO of southern India for tribal rights filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in 1997.
  • In Samata vs. State of Andhra Pradesh(1997), the Supreme Court held that the
    • Land of tribals and forest land cannot be leased to non-tribals or private companies for mining or industrial world such works can only be done by tribals or government undertaking.

Additional Information 

  • This was one of the important judgment which upheld the tribal land rights according to the fifth schedule of the Constitution of India.
  • Special Leave Petition: These petitions are filed in the Supreme Court of India according to Article 136 of the Constitution of India and it is the discretion of the Supreme Court to decide the admissibility of the petition.
  • Fifth Schedule: The fifth schedule of the constitution contains provisions related to the administration of the scheduled area which contains a sizable tribal population.
  • The states under the fifth schedule are Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra Odisha and Rajasthan.

Related Questions

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.