Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1355 (GAU)

Allan W. Kharkongor v. State of Meghalaya

2012-12-20

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, S.R.SEN

body2012
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2011 passed in WP (C) No. 99(SH) of 2010 by which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the permission dated 9.12.2009 granted in favour of the private respondent No. 8, who belongs to a non-tribal community, for transfer of a flat being flat No. S-302 situated at Ferndale Apartments, M.G. Road, Shillong within European Ward of Shillong Municipality contending that such permission for transfer had been granted in violation of Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 and Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for consideration by this Court may be stated as follows. The stated case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that sometime in the year 2002, the respondent No. 7, who belongs to Khasi community, a recognized Scheduled Tribe in the State of Meghalaya took up a project for construction of a number of flats in Ferndale Apartments, M.G. Road, Shillong and filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District i.e. respondent No. 5, seeking a Certificate for enabling the flats to be transferred to prospective buyers. The State authorities on consideration of the said application, communicated the "No Objection" to the proposal of transfer of flats. Thereafter, on completion of construction of flats, the respondent No. 7 informed the respondent No. 5 of completion of construction of flats and sought approval for registration of the same and also furnished a list of the prospective owners/buyers along with flat numbers and value of the flats. Subsequently, a notice under Rule 6(1) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Rules, 1974 was issued by the respondent No. 6 on 18.5.2009 inviting intending purchasers from the tribals in respect of flat No. S-302 situated at Ferndale Apartments, M.G. Road, Shillong by giving 30 days notice. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 18.5.2009, the petitioner submitted an application on 10.6.2009 expressing his intention to purchase the said flat No. S- 302 at the quoted price and also informing that the petitioner belongs to Khasi tribe. The said application of the writ petitioner was duly forwarded to the concerned authorities. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 18.5.2009, the petitioner submitted an application on 10.6.2009 expressing his intention to purchase the said flat No. S- 302 at the quoted price and also informing that the petitioner belongs to Khasi tribe. The said application of the writ petitioner was duly forwarded to the concerned authorities. The petitioner claims that as there was no response to his application for purchase of the said flat, he, being highly suspicious, filed an application under Right to Information Act seeking information from the office of the respondents No. 4 and 5 regarding his application to purchase the said flat. The petitioner states that he was informed by the authorities that by an order dated 9.12.2009, the Government had already granted permission for transfer of flat No. S-302 situated at Ferndale Apartments, M.G. Road, Shillong in favour of the respondent No. 8, a non tribal. 2. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the aforesaid permission granted on 9.12.2009 for transfer of flat No. S-302 in favour of the respondent No. 8. 3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the said permission granted in favour of the respondent No. 8 is clearly violative of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 herein referred to as the "Act of 1971" and rules framed thereunder. Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act of 1971 is reproduced herein:-- Section 3(1) No land in Meghalaya shall be transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal or by a non-tribal to another non-tribal except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Provided that the Government of Meghalaya if satisfied may, from time to time, by notification, prohibit any transfer of land within such area or areas as may be specified in the notification and there upon the competent authority shall not sanction any such transfer of land under the provision of this Act, within such area or area. Provided further that no notification made under the preceding proviso shall apply to transfer the land for any of the purposes mentioned in Clause (e) or Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of the Section 4. 4. Provided further that no notification made under the preceding proviso shall apply to transfer the land for any of the purposes mentioned in Clause (e) or Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of the Section 4. 4. The State Government had framed Rules namely, Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Rules, 1974, herein referred to as the Rules of 1974 pursuant to Section 14 of the aforesaid Act of 1971 to carry out the provisions of the Act. Rule 6(1) of the said Rules, which may be relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute in issue, is reproduced hereinbelow:-- Rule 6(1) Immediately on receipt of the application under Rule 4 for sanction for sale of a plot of land, the competent authority shall issue public notice in form "D" inviting buyers for the land proposed to be transferred, from amongst the tribal. In case no tribal comes forward to buy the land at the market value within 30 days from the date of publication of the said notice, the competent authority shall proceed to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Rule 6(1) makes it abundantly clear that in the matter relating to sale of immovable property including land, a suitable tribal buyer who is ready to pay the market value of the land of the property shall be given preference over the non-tribal buyer. In the present case, the petitioner claims that he had already offered the market value of the flat as quoted in the notice but the same was not considered and without giving any preference to the petitioner without any valid reason and cause, the same had been allowed to be transferred to respondent No. 8, who is a non-tribal. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid Act of 1971 and Rules of 1974 are applicable throughout the State of Meghalaya including the areas known as European Ward of Shillong Municipality in which the flat in issue is undisputedly located. Therefore, since permission granted in favour of the respondent No. 8 was in violation of the aforesaid Rule 6(1) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Rules, 1974 read with Section 3(1) of Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, the same is clearly illegal and is liable to be quashed, contends the petitioner. 6. Therefore, since permission granted in favour of the respondent No. 8 was in violation of the aforesaid Rule 6(1) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Rules, 1974 read with Section 3(1) of Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, the same is clearly illegal and is liable to be quashed, contends the petitioner. 6. The state respondents No. 1 to 6 and the respondent No. 7, the original owner of the land as well as the respondent No. 8, the purchaser of the flat, have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. 7. The main contention of the respondent authorities is that the flat in question is located within European Ward of Shillong Municipality in which any non-tribal can buy any property without any such restraint or pre-condition provided under the Act of 1971 and Rules of 1974. The respondent No. 7 also had taken the plea that the flat in question is located within European Ward of Shillong Municipality which is not a tribal area and is an excluded area in terms of para No. 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, more specifically, the proviso to sub-para 2 of para No. 20. It has been contended that accordingly, in terms of the mandate of Section 1(2) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, the proviso and embargo contained in the Act of 1971 do not apply in respect of the area in question. 8. The respondent No. 8, the purchaser has also taken the same plea that Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 and Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Rules, 1974 are not applicable in the municipality area of Shillong which is known as European Ward and as such, question of non-compliance of the provisions of the said Act and Rules while granting permission to the respondent No. 8 does not arise. 9. It is not disputed amongst the parties that the flat in issue is located in European Ward within Shillong Municipality. The issue which arises for our consideration, therefore, is whether areas falling within Shillong Municipality comes within the Tribal Areas, as the provisions of the Act is applicable to the Tribal Areas. If the answer to this question is in the positive, the provisions of the Act will be applicable in the present case and the writ petitioner would have the legal right to enforce the provisions of the Act. If the answer to this question is in the positive, the provisions of the Act will be applicable in the present case and the writ petitioner would have the legal right to enforce the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, the provisions of the Act which extends to the Tribal Areas will not be applicable to European Ward located within Shillong Municipality being outside Tribal Area and consequently, the petitioner's claim based on the provisions of the Act will not be maintainable. 10. Section 1(2) of the "The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 provides that the said Act will be applicable only in the tribal areas of the State of Meghalaya. Section 1 of the said Act reads as follows: 1(1) This Act may be called the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. (2) It extends to the tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya as specified in Part II of Table appended to paragraph-20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. 1: Inserted by Act 6 of 1975. (3) It shall come into force on such date as the Government of Meghalaya may, by notification, appoint. 11. Therefore, we have to understand the meaning and extent of the expression 'tribal areas' and to find out if 'European Ward' in Shillong Municipality within which the flat in issue is admittedly located is within "tribal areas" so as to subject this area to the provisions of the aforesaid Act, since the entire case of the petitioner is founded on the claim that provisions of the said Act and rules framed thereunder had been violated in granting permission to the Respondent No. 8, a non tribal by ignoring the preferential claim of the petitioner who belongs to Khasi community, a recognized Schedule Tribe in the State of Meghalaya. 12. This exercise therefore, leads us to examine the scope of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India in this regard. Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India was incorporated initially to cater to the needs and aspirations and safeguard the indigenous rights of the tribal people in the tribal areas of the then undivided Assam of which the present State of Meghalaya formed a part. The provisions of the Sixth Schedule as it stands now cover the tribal areas of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The provisions of the Sixth Schedule as it stands now cover the tribal areas of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Sixth Schedule as it was first enacted extended only to the Tribal Areas in the undivided Assam. Article 244(2) in Part X of the Constitution as it originally stood provided that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the State of Assam. Relevant portions of the Sixth Schedule as first enacted are reproduced herein below: SIXTH SCHEDULE [Articles 244(2) and 275(1)] PROVISIONS AS TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRIBAL AREAS IN THE STATES OF ASSAM 1. Autonomous districts and autonomous regions: (1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the tribal areas in each item of Part A of the table appended to paragraph 20 of this Schedule shall be an autonomous district. 2. .... 20. Tribal areas.-(1) The areas specified in Parts A and B of the table below shall be the tribal areas within the State of Assam. (2): The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District shall comprise the territories which before the commencement of this Constitution were known as Khasi States and the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District excluding any areas for the time being comprised within the cantonment and municipality of Shillong, but including so much of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong as formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem: Provided that for the purposes of clauses (e) and (f) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3, paragraph 4, paragraph 5, paragraph 6, subparagraph (2), clauses (a), (b) and (d) of subparagraph (3) and sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 and clause (d) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, no part of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the District. (3) Any reference in the table below to any District (other than the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District) or administrative area shall be construed as a reference to the district or area at the commencement of this Constitution. Provided that the tribal areas specified in Part-B of the table below shall not include any such areas in the plains as may, with the previous approval of the President, be notified by the Governor of Assam in that behalf. TABLE PART A 1. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District 2 The Garo Hills District 3. Provided that the tribal areas specified in Part-B of the table below shall not include any such areas in the plains as may, with the previous approval of the President, be notified by the Governor of Assam in that behalf. TABLE PART A 1. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District 2 The Garo Hills District 3. The Lushai Hills District 4. The Naga Hills District. 5. The North Cachar Hills. 6. The Mikir Hills. 13. An analysis of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule as it stood then would reveal that (i) Area specified in Part A of the table would be a "Tribal Area". (ii) Part A consists of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District and other districts named therein. (iii) United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District comprises of territories known as (a) Khasi States (b) Khasi and Jaintia Hills districts excluding areas of 1. Cantonment 2. Municipality of Shillong (excluding areas which formed part of Khasi State of Mylliem). (c) Parts of Municipality of Shillong which formed part of Khasi State of Mylliem. From the above Para 20 (2) of the Sixth Schedule as it originally stood, what is evidently clear is that such areas for the time being comprised within the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong (excluding so much of the area comprised within the. Municipality of Shillong as formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem) would not form part of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District, the precursor of the present Khasi Hills District and the State of Meghalaya. It is nobody's case that European Ward formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem within the Municipality of Shillong. The fact that European Ward is very much an integral part of the Municipality of Shillong is also not under dispute. Therefore, even though the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District is an specified area in Part A of the Table as mentioned above, and hence a Tribal Area in terms of Para 20(1) of the Sixth Schedule, by virtue of the exclusion clause under sub para (2) of Para 20, areas covered by Municipality of Shillong or cantonment will not be a tribal area. In other words, areas tailing within Municipality of Shillong (except those formed part of Khasi State of Mylliem) will not be part of the "tribal area". That was the situation obtaining at the time of initial enactment of the Sixth Schedule in the Constitution. 14. In other words, areas tailing within Municipality of Shillong (except those formed part of Khasi State of Mylliem) will not be part of the "tribal area". That was the situation obtaining at the time of initial enactment of the Sixth Schedule in the Constitution. 14. We have to, therefore, examine whether the same arrangement continued in the Constitution when the aforesaid Act of 1971 was enforced w.e.f. 17.1.1972 and amended in 1975 by inserting Section 1(2) in the Act whereby it was provided that the provisions of the said Act will be applicable to the Tribal Areas and also whether the said arrangement remains unchanged till now in the Constitution. To ascertain this position, as to whether the Municipality of Shillong continued to be kept out of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District, thus, not forming part of the "Tribal Areas", we may have to refer to the subsequent changes and amendments made in the Sixth Schedule and other related enactments. 15. With the enactment of the Assam Reorganization (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 for creating an Autonomous State of Meghalaya within the State of Assam, certain amendments were made in the Constitution by inserting Article 244A with corresponding amendments in the Sixth Schedule. However, no amendment was made in Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule to bring any change in the description of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District which formed part of the newly created Autonomous State of Meghalaya within the State of Assam. In other words, the aforesaid arrangement of keeping Municipality of Shillong out of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District continued when the Autonomous State of Meghalaya was created. As to which areas fell within the Autonomous State of Meghalaya can be ascertained from Section 3 of the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 which reads as follows. The Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 PART II FORMATION OF THE AUTONOMOUS STATE OF MEGHALAYA 3. As to which areas fell within the Autonomous State of Meghalaya can be ascertained from Section 3 of the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 which reads as follows. The Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 PART II FORMATION OF THE AUTONOMOUS STATE OF MEGHALAYA 3. (1) On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed within the State of Assam an autonomous State to be known as Meghalaya which shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section(2), comprise the following tribal areas, namely, (i) the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District as described in sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (exclusive of the proviso thereto) but excluding the areas transferred to the Mikir Hills autonomous district by the Notification of the Government of Assam No. TAD/R/31/50/149, dated the 13th April, 1951, and (ii) The Garo Hills District Specified in Part A of the table appended to paragraph 20 aforesaid. It is thus seen that the autonomous State of Meghalaya consisted of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District as described in subparagraph (2) of Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (exclusive of the proviso thereto) but excluding the areas transferred to the Mikir Hills Autonomous district. We have already seen from above that the Municipality of Shillong had been already excluded from the purview of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District as provided in sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution as it was enacted initially. No change was made with regard to Municipality of Shillong. With the enactment of the North Eastern Areas (Re-organization) Act, 1971, new States were formed including the State of Meghalaya. The State of Meghalaya was carved out of the State of Assam constituted by the territories which were comprised in the Autonomous State of Meghalaya formed under Section 3 of the Assam Re-organisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969, and the territories comprised within the cantonment and Municipality of Shillong. Relevant portions of The North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation Act), 1971 may be reproduced herein below. The North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation Act), 1971 PART II Establishment of the States of Manipur and Tripura, and formation of the State of Meghalaya and of the Union Territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. 5. Relevant portions of The North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation Act), 1971 may be reproduced herein below. The North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation Act), 1971 PART II Establishment of the States of Manipur and Tripura, and formation of the State of Meghalaya and of the Union Territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. 5. Formation of the State of Meghalaya.--On and from the appointed day there shall be formed a new State, to be known as the State of Meghalaya, comprising (a) the territories which immediately before that day were comprised in the autonomous State of Meghalaya formed under Section 3 of the Assam Re-organisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 (55 of 1969), and (b) so much of the territories comprised within the cantonment and municipality of Shillong as did not form part of that autonomous State, and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing State of Assam. 16. The aforesaid provision of Section 5 of the North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation Act), 1971 makes it very clear that the cantonment and municipality of Shillong did not form part of that Autonomous State of Meghalaya. The newly carved out State of Meghalaya consists of the territories comprising of:- (i) Autonomous State of Meghalaya formed under Section 3 of the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969, (ii) Cantonment area, (iii) Municipality of Shillong. Therefore, from the above, it emerges very clearly that the Municipality of Shillong was never part of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya to be considered a tribal area as described in Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule. 17. After the formation of the State of Meghalaya in terms of Section 5 of the North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation Act), 1971, the name of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District was renamed as Khasi Hills District vide Notification dated 14.6.1973. Apart from change in nomenclature to Khasi Hills District, no changes have been brought about as regards the areas of the erstwhile United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District, renamed as Khasi Hills District. 18. Now we shall examine if any changes have been made in the Sixth Schedule, as it stands today which may be reproduced as below: SIXTH SCHEDULE [Articles 244(2) and 275(1)] PROVISIONS AS TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRIBAL AREAS IN THE STATES OF ASSAM, MEGHALAYA, TRIPURA AND MIZORAM 1. 18. Now we shall examine if any changes have been made in the Sixth Schedule, as it stands today which may be reproduced as below: SIXTH SCHEDULE [Articles 244(2) and 275(1)] PROVISIONS AS TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRIBAL AREAS IN THE STATES OF ASSAM, MEGHALAYA, TRIPURA AND MIZORAM 1. Autonomous districts and autonomous regions; (1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the tribals areas in each item of Parts I, II and IIA and Part III of the table appended to paragraph 20 of this Schedule shall be an autonomous district. 2. .... 20. Tribal areas.-(1) The areas specified in Parts I, II, IIA and III of the table below shall respectively be the tribal areas within the State of Assam, the State of Meghalaya, the State of Tripura and the State of Mizoram. (2) Any reference in Part I, Part II or Part III of the table below to any district shall be construed as a reference to the territories comprised within the autonomous district of that name existing immediately before the day appointed under clause (b) of Section 2 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971: Provided that for the purposes of clauses (c) and (f) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3, paragraph 4, paragraph 5, paragraph 6, subparagraph (2), clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph (3) and sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 and clause (d) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, no part of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the Khasi Hills District. (3) The reference in Part IIA in the table below to the "Tripura Tribal Areas District" shall be construed as a reference to the territory comprising the tribal areas specified in the First Schedule to the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 1979. TABLE PART I 1. The North Cachar Hills District 2. The Karbi Anglong District. PART II 1. Khasi Hills District. 2. Jaintia Hills District. 3. The Garo Hills District. PART II-A Tripura Tribal Areas District PART III [****] 1. The Chakma District. 2 The Mara District. 3. The Lai District. TABLE PART I 1. The North Cachar Hills District 2. The Karbi Anglong District. PART II 1. Khasi Hills District. 2. Jaintia Hills District. 3. The Garo Hills District. PART II-A Tripura Tribal Areas District PART III [****] 1. The Chakma District. 2 The Mara District. 3. The Lai District. Para 20(2) above provides that any reference in Part II of the table to the Khasi Hills District shall be construed as a reference to the territories comprised within the autonomous district of that name existing immediately before the day appointed under clause (b) of Section 2 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971; As discussed above, the territories comprised within the autonomous United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (which was subsequently renamed as Khasi Hills District) did not include Municipality of Shillong. Right from the inception of the Sixth Schedule, the areas falling within the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong have been kept out of the territory of the autonomous United Khasi- Jaintia Hills District (which was subsequently renamed as Khasi Hills District, as exists on date). 19. Considering the above position obtaining regarding the territorial limits of the Khasi Hills District which excludes specifically the Municipality of Shillong, right from the inception of the Sixth Schedule till date, we are of the view that the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 will not be applicable to the areas of Municipality of Shillong by virtue of the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, as Municipality of Shillong as mentioned above was never part of "tribal area". 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court rendered in Sudhir Ranjan Chanda Vs. Uma Dutta, 2009 (5) GLT 681 and Commissioner of Income Tax N.E. Region, Shillong Vs. Smt. A.M. Marbaniang, (1993) Supp (I) GLR 348 in support of the contention that the provisions of the Act of 1971 are applicable in Shillong Municipality. In Sudhir Ranjan Chanda's case (supra), the Court was dealing with transfer of land situated in Jail Road, Shillong without permission from the competent authority under the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. The Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, transfer of land can not be affected without previous sanction of the competent authority. The Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, transfer of land can not be affected without previous sanction of the competent authority. However, the issue whether area within which the land in dispute was located was a tribal area or not for the purpose of applicability of the aforesaid Act was not raised and hence, not considered and decided. Even though the appellant therein submitted that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the suit land located in Municipality of Shillong, it was not pressed and pursued to its logical conclusion. It may be also noted that the appellant in the said case was also relying on the permission granted by the competent authority after the death of one of the applicants, the father of the plaintiff respondent, to enforce the agreement for transfer of the land. Thus, both the parties in the said case seem to have accepted that permission of the competent authority is required for transfer of land under the Act, thus, were rather tacitly admitting that provisions of the Act of 1971 would be applicable in Shillong Municipality area. It may be also noted that the question, whether the provisions of the Act are applicable in Shillong Municipality was not an issue before the trial Court nor before the appellate Court as evident from paras No. 8 and 16 of the judgment The learned Single Judge also did not elaborately deal with the reason for applicability of the provisions of the Act in the said area, except for holding that permission for transfer of sale is required under the Act. Further, in the said proceeding, the State was not a party. Therefore, we hold that any observation or finding in Sudhir Ranjan Chanda's case (supra) to the extent that the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 are applicable in Shillong Municipality (except those areas as formed part of Khasi State of Mylliem) would not have precedential value. In Smt. A.M. Marbaniang's case (supra), the issue before the Court was whether the assessee of income tax, who was a member of a Schedule Tribe and a resident of Shillong and working within cantonment area, would be eligible for exemption from payment of income tax as provided under Sub-section 26 of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Smt. A.M. Marbaniang's case (supra), the issue before the Court was whether the assessee of income tax, who was a member of a Schedule Tribe and a resident of Shillong and working within cantonment area, would be eligible for exemption from payment of income tax as provided under Sub-section 26 of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on para No. 6 of the judgment in Smt A. M. Marbaniang (supra) contended that the provisions of the Act of 1971 would be applicable to the Shillong Municipality. The learned counsel for the petitioner also by referring to para No. 8 of the judgment which stated that Thus, we hold that the area of residence contemplated in Section 10(26) of the Act is the Khasi Hills District, which includes area of Shillong municipality and cantonment," would submit that since it was held that Khasi Hills District includes the areas of Shillong municipality and cantonment, and since Khasi Hills District is a "tribal area", as a corollary, it would follow that area of Shillong municipality and cantonment would be also "tribal area". However, a proper reading of the judgment would reveal that rather than supporting the claim of the petitioner, it substantiates the contention of the Respondents. In para No. 2 of the judgment, it has been clearly noted that cantonment area is not part of tribal area indicating that certain areas are not tribal areas. Further, in para No. 7, this Court also observed that, 7. ...It is therefore clear that the traditional tribal areas of the erstwhile United Khasi-Jaintia Hills district or the successor Khasi Hills district excluded the areas comprising the cantonment and municipality of Shillong, other than the areas which formed pan of the Khasi State of Mylliem. Thus, according to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20, the reference in Part II of the table to Khasi Hills District shall be construed as reference to the area comprised in the Khasi Hills District excluding the areas comprised within the cantonment and municipality of Shillong, other than the area which formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem. Thus, according to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20, the reference in Part II of the table to Khasi Hills District shall be construed as reference to the area comprised in the Khasi Hills District excluding the areas comprised within the cantonment and municipality of Shillong, other than the area which formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem. According to Section 5 of the 1971 Act there shall be a new State of Meghalaya comprising of the territories of the autonomous State of Meghalaya and so much of the territories comprised within the cantonment and municipality of Shillong as did not form part of the autonomous State of Meghalaya. This means that the State of Meghalaya comprises of area included in the autonomous State of Meghalaya plus some more area, namely, the area comprised within the cantonment and municipality of Shillong which did not form part of the autonomous State of Meghalaya. In other words, while the area specified in Part II of the table includes the larger area (cantonment and municipality area), and narrower connotation is given by subparagraph (2) of paragraph 20 as it stood at the time of the 1969 Act. (emphasis added) It may be also noted that in the aforesaid case the Court was not considering the meaning and scope of "tribal areas", but was examining the applicability of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sub-section 26 of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, merely refers to such Schedule Tribe residing in any area specified in Part I or Part II of the Table appended to para 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, thus its reference is irrespective of whether it was a tribal or non-tribal area, and so long the area is specified in Part I or Part II of the Table, it would come within the ambit of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus it was observed in para No. 8 of the judgment that what is incorporated in Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is the "Table" appended to para 20 of the Sixth Schedule and not paragraph 28 or the sub-para (2) of the Sixth Schedule. Thus it was observed in para No. 8 of the judgment that what is incorporated in Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is the "Table" appended to para 20 of the Sixth Schedule and not paragraph 28 or the sub-para (2) of the Sixth Schedule. Accordingly, this Court went on to consider only to the areas specified in Part II of the Table and was not considering the issue of "tribal area" within the meaning of para 20 of the Sixth Schedule. Hence, aforesaid decision is of no assistance to the appellant-petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, we concur with the finding of the learned Single Judge that cantonment and Municipality of Shillong (except so much of the area which formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem) are not "Tribal Areas" and as a consequence thereof, the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 and Rules framed thereunder are not applicable in these areas and accordingly, the transfer of Flat No. S. 302 situated at Ferndale Apartments, M.G. Road, Shillong to Respondent No. 8 does not warrant any interference. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed and the parties are left to bear their respective costs.