DUTTA, C. J.:- Civil Rules Nos. 384 and 108 of 1965 are analogous and they are heard together and disposed of by a single judgment. 1 state the facts in Civil Rule 384 of 1965 in some details. The petitioner in this rule he-longs to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, a recog­nised Scheduled Tribe in the autonomous Dis­trict of United Khasi-jaintia Hills and is a permanent resident of Umsohsun, Shillong, having vast immovable properties in the town of Shillong as also in other parts of the dis­trict outside the Shillong Town. The lands under her absolute ownership and possession, commonly known as R-Kynti land, situated within the municipal limits of Shillong Town, are partly in occupation of tenants and the rest are lying vacant. The lands in occupation of tenants were given on lease by the petitioner to different tenants, both tribals and non-tribals, on condition of payment of annual rents fixed and on other conditions expressly mentioned in the leases executed. Under the terms and conditions of the said leases, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of a pre­mium at 5 per cent of the sale price, in the event of transfer of the right of occupancy in the lands leased or any part thereof by the les­sees to other persons. Apart from the im­movable properties, the petitioner also owned the oldest and the largest printing press at Shillong by the name of Ri Khasi Press' Un­fortunately, the said printing press was gutted by fire in December, 1964 and as a result, the petitioner sustained a huge loss amounting to about five lakhs of rupees. For rebuilding the printing press, the petitioner was faced with the problem of finance and accordingly, she decided to raise capital by selling some of her R-Kynti lands within Shillong Town, there being no other available means to raise the capital needed for that purpose. (2) There being a great demand of lands situated within Shillong Town, many intend­ing purchasers approached her for purchase of the leasehold rights in her Ri-Kynti lands situated at Lower Mawprem in the (own ot Shillong. Accordingly, she entered into agree­ments with the different purchasers for sale of the aforesaid lands at the prices agreed to by the parties and the lands agreed to be sold were divided into different plots. Accordingly, she entered into agree­ments with the different purchasers for sale of the aforesaid lands at the prices agreed to by the parties and the lands agreed to be sold were divided into different plots. The District Council of the United Khasi-jaintia Hills, in the purported exercise of powers under para­graph 3 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitu­tion of India, enacted an Act by the name of the United Khasi-jaintia Hills District (Trans­fer of Land) Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. The said impugned Act was enacted with the intruded object of making provisions in the autonomous district with res­pect to the transfer, allotment, occupation or use of land for any purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants thereof. (3) Shillong being the capital of Assam, people from an parts of the State, as also people from other parts of India, came to set­tle in Shillong Town permanently in connec­tion with services under the Government, busi­nesses and other avocations of life and with the settlement of all such people in the town of Shillong. the importance of the town increased greatly and the town is fast growing into a big city. Since before the constitution of the District Council of United Khasi-jaintia Hills, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Shillong Town were non-tribals, who settled in Shillong Town permanently and even at present, the percentage of non-tribal inhabitants in Shillong Town is much greater than the percentage of tribal inhabitants (4) The petitioner submits that from the provisions of the impugned Act. it would ap­pear that the impugned Act was enacted only with a view to impose prohibitions on transfer of land by way of sale, mortgage or otherwise, by a tribal to a non-tribal and by a non-tribal to another non-tribal, and that in enacting the impugned Act, the interests of the inhabitants of the town or village as a whole were not taken into consideration at all. (5) Section 2 defines the different expressions and the definitions of the expressions 'tribal', "land" and 'family' are quoted here-under:- "(e) 'tribal' means a person who belongs to one of the scheduled tribes in Assam and specified as such by order made by the Presi­dent of India under Article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India in so far as the specifica­tion pertains to the Autonomous Districts of Assam; (f) 'land' includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or perma­nently fastened to anything attached to the earth but shall exclude minerals, natural gas and petroleum; (g) "family" means a person and his wife and children dwelling together with him. (6) Section 3 of the Act, which imposes prohibitions on transfer, runs as follows:- "3. No land within the district shall be sold, mortgaged, leased, bartered, gifted or otherwise transferred by tribal to a non-tribal or by a non-tribal to another non-tribal except with the previous sanction of the District Coun­cil: Provided further- (a) That sanction shall not be accorded to the sale from a tribal to a non-tribal if the Intended transferee either already holds one piece of house property or land in Shillong, within five miles from the Deputy Commis­sioner's Court either in his name or in the name or names of other members of his family or falls within the category (in the opinion of the Chief Executive Member), of the class of profiteering landlords; (b) That reasons shall be recorded for any refusal to transfer from a tribal to a non-tribal or from a non-tribal to another non-tribal." (7) Sec. 5 prescribes the provisions for ejectment of persons other than tribals. Sec. 5 runs as follows:- "5. Sec. 5 runs as follows:- "5. If any person other than a tribal is found to be in possession of any land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or in such possession thereof as found con­trary to Section 4 above, the Chief Executive Member or any other Officer authorised in writing by the Chief Executive Member in this behalf, may serve a notice upon the person con­cerned requiring him to vacate the land within three months from the date of service of the notice and to remove any buildings or fences which may have been raised on such laud sub­ject to the condition that crops actually grow­ing on the land may be allowed to remain till they are ripe for harvest." (8) Section 6 of the impugned Act pro­vides for imposition of penalty. The said sec­tion runs as follows:- "6. Any person or persons intentionally disobeying an order or requisition to vacate under Section 5 shall be liable to a fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, and, in case such disobedience is continued, to a fur­ther fine which may extend to fifty rupees for each day during which such breach continues." (9) Section 7 prescribes the procedure for submission of applications for transfer and matters connected therewith. The said section runs as follows: "7. (1) All applications for sale, mortgage, lease, gift or any other form of transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal or from a non-tribal to another non-tribal shall be made to the Secretary. Executive Committee of the District Council, and accompanied by an appli­cation fee and a transfer fee at rates specified in the schedule to this Act. No sanction shall be given to such applications before a report is received from the local administrative heads and duly considered. Executive Committee of the District Council, and accompanied by an appli­cation fee and a transfer fee at rates specified in the schedule to this Act. No sanction shall be given to such applications before a report is received from the local administrative heads and duly considered. (2) The fees shall be deposited by the applicant into the District Fund by Treasury challans which shall be attached to the applica­tion in proof of the deposit (3) In the event of the application being re­jected, the transfer fee shall be refunded." {'!0) In view of the above provisions of the impugned Act, the petitioner was obliged to file applications dated the 4th February 1965, the 4th March 1965 and the 1st March 1965 to the Secretary, Executive Committee, District Council United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, Shillong, through the Siem of Mylliem praying for the grant of permissions to transfer ten plots of land to ten different persons, namely, (1) Shri Gopendra Kumar Gosh, New Star Dairy, Shillong, (2) Shri Gopendra Kumar Gosh, Bar-pani, Shillong, (3) Shri Bipin Chandra Ghosh, New Star Dairy, Shillong, (4) Shri Digendra Kumar Ghosh, D.M.-19, Dudgeon Lines, Shil­long, (5) Shri Manindra Kumar Ghosh, Lower Mawprem, Shillong, (6) Shri Ranjit Kumar Ghosh, New Star Dairy, Shillong, (7) Shri Kabindra Bijoy Kar, Accountant-General's Office Shillong, (8) Shri Ramendra Sundar Roy Chaudhury, Nongrim Hill, Shillong, (9) Shri Puma Chanda, Nongthymai, Shillong, and (10) Shri Mrityimjoy Chakravarty, Temple Road, Shillong, who are permanent inhabitants of Shillong Town having no houses or lands any­where inside the autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills. The petitioner, as re­quired, deposited the prescribed application fees into the District Fund and also filed affida­vits sworn by the proposed transferees and sketch maps in duplicate of the ten plots agreed to be sold. In the petitions enclosed with the above applications, it was stated, inter alia, that the sales of the above plots of land had become necessary in order to raise capital for rebuilding the printing press, which was gutted by fire in December, 1964 and that the above plots of land being situated in a non-tribal locality, the tribals were found to be rather reluctant to take on lease the above plots of land. (11) The applications for transfer of lands submitted by the petitioner, were sent to res­pondent No. 7, the Syiem of Mylliem for en­quiry and report. (11) The applications for transfer of lands submitted by the petitioner, were sent to res­pondent No. 7, the Syiem of Mylliem for en­quiry and report. The Syiem of Mylliem by letter dated 1-4-1965 informed the petitioner and the proposed purchasers that in view of the policy adopted by the Executive Com­mittee of the District Council, as conveyed by letter No. DC. XI/124/63/10/632, dated the 1st February, 1965, no comments could be made on the said applications by the Syiem's Durbar. Accordingly, the Syiem of Mylliem forwarded the applications to the Secretary, Executive Committee, District Council, without any report. (12) Then by letter dated 28-7-1965, issued by respondent No. 6, Revenue Officer, District Council, the petitioner was informed that the Executive Committee, District Council, found no ground to justify sanction for transfer of the lands, as applied for and that the appli­cations were, therefore, rejected. (13) The petitioner not being aware of any policy adopted by the Executive Com­mittee of the District Council relating to the transfer of land, as mentioned in the letter dated 1-4-1965 sent by the Syiem of Mylliem and any such policy not being published or promulgated anywhere in the district, applied for the certified copy of the letter No. DC. XI/ 124/63/10/632 dated the 1st February 1965 mentioned in the earlier letter dated 1-4-1965 of the Syiem of Mylliem and obtained the certi­fied copy of the said letter from the office of the Syiern of Mylliem. On obtaining the certified copy of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner came to know that by letter dated 29-l-1965 of the Revenue officer, District Council, a copy of the policy of the. Executive Committee adopted, on 2.1-1 I''(So relating to the transfer of land in Shillong within five miles from the Deputy Commissioner s Court, was forwarded to the Syiem of Mylliern for information and future guidance. (14) A copy of the policy adopted on 21 lr-J965 and a copy of the aforesaid letter dated 29-1-1965 are annexed to this petition and marked collectively as Annexure "C . (15) The petitioner in Civil Hale No. 40S of 1965 is filed by one Maudhoj Bhandan a non-tribal. (14) A copy of the policy adopted on 21 lr-J965 and a copy of the aforesaid letter dated 29-1-1965 are annexed to this petition and marked collectively as Annexure "C . (15) The petitioner in Civil Hale No. 40S of 1965 is filed by one Maudhoj Bhandan a non-tribal. His case is that he is a permanent resident of Shillong and a citizen of India He says that he was granted a patta in 1913 In the landlord for a plot of land measuring 1.4 acres in Mawprem, Shillong, and he acquired a permanent, heritable and transferable right of occupancy in the said land. Being in need of money, he wanted to sell two plots of land put of the said land-one plot to one Barindra Lal Kuri arid the other plot to one Kamini Kumar Kuri. The District Council granted permission for transfer of land to Barindra Kumar kuri but refused permission for trans­fer of any land to Kamini Kumar Kuri. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court and challenged the validity of the provision under which the permission of the District Council is necessary for the transfer of land. , (16) The first point raised is that the Dis­trict Council was not competent to make any law on the transfer of land. Paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule gives the items on which the District Council can make laws. The rele­vant portion of this paragraph is as follows:- "3. , (16) The first point raised is that the Dis­trict Council was not competent to make any law on the transfer of land. Paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule gives the items on which the District Council can make laws. The rele­vant portion of this paragraph is as follows:- "3. (1) The Regional Council for an auto­nomous region in respect of all areas within such region and the District Council for an autonomous district in respect of all areas within the district except those which are under the authority of Regional Councils, if any, within the district shall have power to make laws with respect to - (a) the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart, of land, other than any land which is a reserved forest, for the purposes of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or town: Provided that nothing in such laws shall prevent the compulsory acquisition of any land, whether occupied or unoccupied, for public-purposes by the Government of Assam in accordance with the law for the time being in force authorising such acquisition; (j) Social customs" (17) United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) was enacted by the District Council and came into force on the 4th of May 1953. The Preamble of the Act says- "Whereas it is necessary to make provi­sions in the Autonomous District of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills with respect to the transfer, allotment, occupation or use of land for any purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants thereof. Be it enacted as follows". (18) Mr. Ghose points out that the Act is thus made under paragraph 3 (1) (a) of the Sixth Schedule which authorises legislation by the District Council on the allotment, occupa­tion or use or setting apart of land other than any land which is reserved forest, for the pur­poses of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or town. (19) It is significant that the word "trans­fer" which occurs in the Preamble is absent in the above provision. Mr. (19) It is significant that the word "trans­fer" which occurs in the Preamble is absent in the above provision. Mr. Ghose submits that the power of the District Council under the aforesaid paragraph is just like that of a Munici­pal Board which can regulate allotment, occupa­tion or use of land to the extent as to whether a particular site can be used for residential pur­pose or for location of mills, cinema halls etc. It is further pointed out that transfer of agricul­tural land is included in item No. 18 of the State List in the Constitution of India and as such the State legislature is the only competent authority to deal with the transfer of such land. Again transfer of property other than agricul­tural land is included in Item No. 6 of the Concurrent List, and, as such, the State legisla­ture and Parliament are the only authorities which can legislate on transfer of lands other than agricultural lands. (20) Mr. Lahiri however, argues that the Act has been enacted to regulate use and occupation of land and that it has encroached only incidentally upon the aforesaid item No. 18 of State List and item No. 6 of the Concurrent List. Thus Mr. Lahiri pleads the doctrine of "Pith and Substance" and argues that having regard to the enactment as a whole, its object and scope, the District Council is competent to make the above enactment. In this connection he cites the decision of the Privy Council in Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia, AIR 1947 PC 72. In the Government of India Act 1935 item No. 21 of the Provincial List read as follows: "Land, that is to say, rights in or over land-land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents, transfer, alienation and devolution of agricultural land improvement and agricultural loans, colonization, Courts of Wards; encumbered and attached estates; treasure trove". (21) The Privy Council held that though there was no express provision in the Constitu­tion Act, referring by name to "mortgagees" they would properly fall under item No 21 in so far as they were mortgages of land though in certain aspects they included elements of transfer of property and of contract. But I do not think that the above case is of any help to us. But I do not think that the above case is of any help to us. If the item on which the District Council could legislate, was couched in the same language as item No. 21 of the Provincial List in the Government of India Act 1935, we could hold that the District Council had the power to regulate transfer of land. But no such item of the aforesaid item No. 21 has been allotted to a District Council. (22) The District Council is competent to legislate only on particular aspects of land namely their allotment, occupation and use or the setting apart of land for certain purposes. To legislate on transfer of land will be not a mere incidental encroachment upon items given to the State legislature and Parliament. It will amount to legislation under these items. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the District Council has competence to legislate on the transfer of land tinder paragraph 3 (1) (a) of the Sixth Schedule. (23) Mr. Lahiri then argues that there is a social custom in Khasi-Jaintia Hills that all lands belong to the community. This custom will mean that the permission of the community has to be taken before any transfer of land can be done. Formerly the permission of the Gov­ernment was necessary and now the District Council has taken the place of the Government. In (his connection Mr. Lahiri draws our atten­tion to a letter dated the 23rd September, 1908 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner. United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, Shillong to the Syiems. Lyngdohs. Wahadadars and Sardars informing them that the Government would not hence forth recognize any lease or sale of lands by the Khasis to the Europeans or the plains people unless prior consent of the Government was obtained for such leases or sales (Annexure 2 to the affidavit of the Chief Executive Member of the District Council), But from this letter of the Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be said that I there was a custom that all lands belong to the community and hence the permission of the governmental authorities was necessary for their transfer. On the other hand, it is clear from the treaties on Khasi Laws by various authorities that there have been private lands in the Khasi-Jaintia Hills District. On the other hand, it is clear from the treaties on Khasi Laws by various authorities that there have been private lands in the Khasi-Jaintia Hills District. Thus Major P R. T Gurdon in his book "The Khasis points out that the private lands are divided into two classes namely Ri-Kur and Ri-Kynti. Ri-Kur is the land belonging to the clan. Ri-Kynti are private lands which have been either acquired y a man or woman individually, or in the case of a woman, inherited from her mother. Gurdon adds that such lands must be entirely dis­tinguished from the land of the clan. Thus the argument of Mr Lahiri that the Act only con firms a social custom and thus it is a legislation under Clause (j) of sub-para (1) of paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule, has no substance. There­fore, I do not think that the District Council is competent to make any law on the transfer of land. In this view of the matter, it is not neces­sary to examine the second point raised, namely whether Section 3 of the Act gives a naked and uncanalised discretion to the District Council to refuse permission for the transfer of land and as such it is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But all the same, I may deal with this point also. I have already quoted this section above. Article 19 (1)(f) guarantees the right to every citizen of India to acquire, own and dispose of properties. Under Clause (5) of the said Article the State can impose reasonable restriction on the exer­cise of the above right "in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe". (24) Mr. Lahiri contends that to find out the policy of a legislation enacted by the District Council, we should look at the report of the Committee on Tribal Affairs appointed by the Constituent Assembly. From this it will appear that the Sixth Schedule was inserted in the Constitution mainly to protect the Tribal people from being ousted from their home lands by plains people. In this connection he quotes the following passage from Willoughby's "the Constitutional Law of the United States", second edition at p. 57. From this it will appear that the Sixth Schedule was inserted in the Constitution mainly to protect the Tribal people from being ousted from their home lands by plains people. In this connection he quotes the following passage from Willoughby's "the Constitutional Law of the United States", second edition at p. 57. "It would appear that, for the interpreta­tion of ambiguous or uncertain statutory provi­sions, the Courts will more readily resort to declarations of legislative intent contained in reports of congressional committees, or in state­ments of the chairmen of such committees, than in the records of the debates attending the enactment of the statutes . (25) It has been held by the Supreme Com! in innumerable cases that the guidance for the application of discretion by the execu­tive authority should be in the statute itself. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District Council, UK 1967 SC 829, seems to be on all fours with the present case. In that case Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (Trading by non-tribals) Regulation was challenged as violative of Article 19 (1) (e) and (g) of the Constitution of India. The said Regulation was made by the District Council under Paragraph 10 of the Sixth Schedule which empowers the District Council to make regulations for regulating and controlling money lending and trading by non-Tn'bals in the District and in particular to provide by such Regulations that no non-Tribal was to carry on any trade without a license. One Hari Chand Sarda. a non-Tribal, started trading at Aijal in the Mizo District in 1957 under a temporary licence issued by the District Council. He made a big investment in his busi­ness. The temporary licence could be issued at the lime only for one year and therefore he first applied for obtaining its renewal till 31st May, I960. Thereafter he applied for further renewal whereupon the Executive Committee of the District Council passed an order refusing any further renewal and directing him to re­move his properties from the District. In this connection the Supreme Court decided as (allows "Even though it may perhaps be said that the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shows a policy to safeguard the tribals from being exploited and the Regulation was enacted in. In this connection the Supreme Court decided as (allows "Even though it may perhaps be said that the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shows a policy to safeguard the tribals from being exploited and the Regulation was enacted in. exercise of the power conferred thereunder that is not enough to save the restriction from the vice of being unreasonable It provides no principles on which such a policy is to be im­plemented. As already stated, the Regulation contains no principle or criterion on which the Executive Committee should grant or refuse to grant a licence or its renewal. It does not pro­vide any machinery under which an applicant can show cause why his application for a licence or its renewal should not be rejected. It does not also provide any superior authority before whom such au applicant can establish that the refusal by the Committee is arbitrary or without any proper cause. Indeed the Regulation does not contain any provision laying down what is and what is riot a proper cause for refusal. Equally does it not show any guiding criterion on which the Committee should decide to grant or refuse a licence or its renewal. The Regulation contains no provisions on the basis of which an applicant would know what he has to satisfy in order to entitle him to a licence. The power to grant 01 not to grant is thus entirely unrestrained and unguided. The Regulation leaves a trader not only at the mercy of the Committee but also without any remedy. There fore even if the Sixth Schedule can be said to contain a policy arid the Regulation may be said to have been enacted in pursuance of such a policy the analysis of the Regulation shows that that is not sufficient Even if a statute lays down a policy it is conceivable that its imple­mentation may be left in such an arbitrary manner that the statute providing for such implementation would amount to an unreason­able restriction A provision which leaves au unbridled power to an authority cannot in any sense be characterised as reasonable. Section 3 of the Regulation is one such provision and is therefore liable to be struck down as violative of Article 19 (1) (g). (26) It is quite clear from the above decision that the guidance for the exercise of dis­cretion by the executive authority must be in the statute itself. Section 3 of the Regulation is one such provision and is therefore liable to be struck down as violative of Article 19 (1) (g). (26) It is quite clear from the above decision that the guidance for the exercise of dis­cretion by the executive authority must be in the statute itself. But in the Act we find no. such guidance Ft is true that under Section 3 Clause (b) reasons are to be recorded for any refusal of transfer of land from a Tribal to a non-Tribal or from a non-Tribal to a Tribal But there is no provision even for appeal against the refusal of the District Council. In these circumstances, I think Section 3 of the Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In either view of the matter, the aforesaid section cannot be sustained and it is struck down as unconstitutional (27) In the result, the petitioners in both Civil Rules Nos. 384 and 408 of 1965 must succeed and the impugned orders passed by the Executive Committee of the District Council are set aside. The petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs (28) PATHAK J. ; I agree. BY THE COURT:-Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution, as prayed or. Petitions allowed