Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) When land has been allotted to all the landless SC/ST of the Category - I of the available land after change of classification of charnoi land is still available, the remaining land in the village shall be allotted to such member of SC and ST as defined in Category - II.
(iii) After allotment of land to landless persons of Categories I & II of SC & ST then it will be if allotted to members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes of Category -I of the adjacent villages.
(iv) If in any village the landless Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe defined in Category -I are available and land for allotment to them is also available then each such landless person shall be allotted a minimum of 1 hectare or a maximum of 2 hectares of unirrigated land. If the available land is less, the allotment shall be done in such a manner that no person receives less than 1/2 hectare of land irrigated land shall be one hectare.
22. It is putforth by Mr, Tankha that if the entire area of the State is taken into consideration the parcel of land which has been demarcated to be allocated to the SC & ST on priority/preference basis can not be found fault with as it comes about 1%. It is propounded by him that certain words in the circular "it should be allotted only to the SC & ST persons" have been loosely used and instructions have been issued to delete the said phraseology. Be that as it may, the question that really arises at this juncture is whether such deletion would save the circular. We have carefully seen the priority/preference clause. In our considered view such priority though finds place in many a case but in the present one, as we perceive, no land would ever be granted to the Category -I who belong to classes other than the SC and ST. Mr. Tankha has commended us to the decision rendered in the case of V.D. Chaturbhai (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that the landless persons with uneconomic holdings in villages belong to SC & ST are in need of special care. It is his submission that distributive justice has to be allowed free play in an egalitarian society and placed into service certain other decisions which we have referred to above. Learned Counsel while building up the argument on the concept of distributive justice in juxtaposition with Article 46 has referred us to the decision rendered in the case of Charansingh and others (supra) wherein a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Paragraph 10 held as under :--

27. Under Rule 5 of Karnataka Rules reservation was made for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category at 50%. The said Rules were approved in a way by the Apex Court. It is submitted by Mr. Tankha, learned Advocate General for the State that economic and social justice are to be done to the weaker sections of the society and especially to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they have suffered immensely and faced exploitation for centuries and economic empowerment to the said sections is an integral part of the distributive justice. It is putforth by him that by conferring preference a basic human right is extended to the said class of people so that they can live with status and dignity fulfilling their want and aspiration without getting them alienated from the main stream of civilization. It is canvassed by him that the concept of priority as has been introduced in the circular is meant to provide adequate means of livelihood to the poor and weaker sections of the society and the same meets the basic ingredient of public good. The meaningful life is the requirement under the Constitution and various provisions of the Constitution throw light on the same and the Courts are required to act as sentinel on a qui vive so that the rights of the people particularly the poor sections are maintained. It is canvassed by him that opportunity are to be provided to the needy to live with minimum comforts, namely, food, shelter, health and clothing and when the State has put a progressive step forward to achieve this meaningful purpose in consonance with the Article 21 of the Constitution it should not be condemned on the base that there has been reservation in excess. The aforesaid submissions of Mr. Tankha are quite attractive. They require to be dealt with on existing parameters. We have already referred to the decisions which have upheld 50% of reservation in the arena of appointments. Mr. Tankha has, by aforesaid submission, endeavoured to distinguish the same. We have already indicated that the decisions were rendered in a different context. While so doing we have also referred to the decision rendered in the case of D.M. Nanjjappa (supra). In this context we remember the maxim 'Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex' meaning thereby the welfare of the people is the supreme law and all other maxims of public policies must yield in. It is so because object of all laws is to promote the well being of the society. It is not disputed before us that there are poor landless persons belonging to other categories apart from the people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. True it is, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons have suffered for centuries and, therefore, special treatment is provided for them so that they come up in the society. However, the said aspect can not be allowed to dominate the arena as that would create a sense of heart-burning, uncalled for and unwarranted rivalry and lead to acrimony which the parameters of civilization does not countenance. The society has to sustain itself by creating harmony and building of amiability among the individual who constitute the society. A sense of brotherhood as well as a feeling of sorority should prevail so that all live as a part of the big family. We are conscious equality in all spheres of the society is a Utopian concept and in a way an impossibility to aspire and achieve. But when the idea of distributive justice is conceived we are disposed to think that there should be a synthesization between the agrarian society and the egalitarian one. A part of the society can not be pedestrianized and another part would be allowed to march with marathon speed on the pretext of protective discrimination. It is of immense significance that in the dictionary clause of the circular, the landless persons have been identified and categorised and hence, doctrine of preference can not be introduced to exclude the other category of persons in entirety. That, in our opinion, would amount to anaesthetisation of the concept of welfare State and would anatomize the social fabric which is an anathema to the constitutional goal. In view of the entire factual scenario and taking note of the conspectus of fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the State by executive instructions can reserve 50% of the land that has come into being by virtue of diversion taking place pursuant to action taken under Section 237 (3) of the Code and that could be distributed amongst the SC & ST categories. At this juncture Mr. Tankha has submitted that some land has already been granted/distributed among SC & ST categories after the date stated hereinbefore. To have a rational approach we think it appropriate to command the State Government not to distribute any further land which have been made available by virtue of operation of Section 237 of the Code. The State shall endeavour to arrange the land apart from the lands set apart under Section 237 (1) and match the same by way of matching land allotment to equalise with 50%. We may clarify that the land which is available in praesenti and which would be brought into the scheme for allotment by the State Government from other types of unoccupied land except the land carved out under Section 237 (1), the said land shall be allotted to the other landless persons as defined under the circular which forms a part of the Revenue Book Circular. We may further clarify that SC & ST persons would be entitled to apply in this match allotment but they will not be conferred any kind of priority or prerogative on the basis of caste. Caste in that regard will have no role to play. Any classification on the base of caste qua aforesaid 50% land would be deemed to be illegal. The State would be at liberty to frame a scheme to make out such further categories to meet the competing equities. Needless to emphasize the scheme will be in consonance with the policy of an egalitarian society taking all aspects into consideration.