India is home to a very diverse variety of tribal people. Every tribe is unique in its character and nature, necessitating a different approach. For instance, the way of life and conditions of native populations in western or central India differ from those of tribes in north-eastern India and the Andaman Islands. It has been discovered that the Indian government has handled its tribal community reasonably effectively since gaining independence.

India is home to around 100 million tribal people who live in 18 different states. Although they make up the majority in some states (like the north-eastern states), tribal communities can also be found in the remaining states in smaller areas known as scheduled regions and tribal areas.

India has several federal and state laws that serve as important checks and balances on how the country's tribal population is treated.

The researcher aims to discuss the property rights and legal rights of the Indigenous community in India, the developments in the Property Rights of Tribal communities pre and post-colonisation along with how West Bengal's tribal community is even more impoverished than those in other states, with their circumstances are not much better than the national average.

This paper also aims to show the Rights available to the tribal communities regarding their property and whether they are being executed to its full potential or not along with various judicial precedents and case laws, the study also shows how the conditions of the Indigenous communities are different from one state to another depending on geographical and socio-economic factors.

Introduction
India's most impoverished communities are tribal ones. They are marginalised and underprivileged from a socioeconomic standpoint. The isolation of tribal individuals from their land, territory, and resources is the primary cause of their socioeconomic marginalisation. There are several important checks and balances in place in India regarding how the indigenous community is treated. The communal ownership concept plays a key role in these communities; property rights.

The community views the land as a common resource that is essential to its survival. Customary rules, which have their roots in cultural customs, dictate how resources are managed, how property is inherited, and how land is used. The land, great cultural and spiritual value makes it more than just a financial asset; it is a vital component of the community, history and identity.

"As rightly said by Margaret Mitchell,
Land is the only thing in the world that amounts to anything, for it's the only thing in this
world that lasts. It's the only thing worth working for, worth fighting for..."

The definition of property in relation to property law is found in the "Transfer of Property Act (TPA)", a statute that helps in regulation of property transactions. The legal ramifications of immovable property transfers in India are principally addressed by the "Transfer of Property,1882". Immovable property as defined in the second section of the "Transfer of Property Act, 1882[1]", "does not include standing timber, growing crops, or grass". Tenements, hereditaments, and anything that would be transferred with the land it is attached to in the case of a transfer are all regarded as property of any type.

Before independence, British colonial strategies & the abuse of indigenous tribes in Tribal territories affected the course of the history of property rights. Laws enacted by the British colonial government frequently resulted in the alienation of indigenous territories. Traditional land tenure patterns were upset by the passage of the Permanent Settlement Act[2] in 1793 followed by land revenue policies, which led to the eviction of native groups.

Following autonomy, the Indian government acknowledged past injustices and worked to resolve the land-related problems that tribal groups were facing. Adopted in 1950[3], the Indian Constitution contained measures on the security of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes (STs), highlighting the need to preserve their traditional lands and rights as a group and their unique character.

"For tribal people, property rights are about a lot more than simply land; they are about protecting cultural traditions, holy sites, and traditional knowledge that have helped these communities survive for many generations".

For the social and economic well-being of Tribal groups Property Rights are very essential as it supports their way of living, cultural identity, and long-term viability. Over the years, tribal or native people have created complexities related to their streams, lands and forests. These rights are necessary as it provide a strategy for land management, these are not only legal concepts but also related to long-standing social and spiritual bonds.

Research Questions:

1. To understand the geographical and property rights of the indigenous communities in India and to look into the legal rights related to property of the indigenous community in tribal areas.
2. To look in the constitutional prospectives of schedule areas and property rights and its legality concerning notified tribal areas and examine the judicial pronouncement related to property rights of the indigenous community in India.

Objective
The Researcher aims to study the concept of property rights with respect to indigenous communities in the tribal areas. Tribal land rights have proven to be a difficult issue for the state to resolve, even with the passage of progressive land reform laws and a strong political commitment to see them through. There is now more land scattered across more areas due to population growth.

The government has recently taken steps to prevent the alienation of tribal lands, but it has not had the guts to return the lands that have been alienated. Their lack of land and ambiguous land titles have made them reliant on their daily wages.

Following the ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Nations' adoption in 2007, the international community acknowledged the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples. The Declaration recognises that, in accordance with their right to self-determination, indigenous peoples are free to engage in their own social, cultural, and economic growth. This right cannot be realised without a full recognition of their institutions, customs, practices, and priorities.

This article examines how tribal land rights are currently perceived within the state and offers some recommendations for how to make things better. For restoring illegally alienated tribal lands, the state has not taken any significant action.

The objective of this study is as follow:

Objectives

• To understand the geographical and property rights of the indigenous communities in India.
• To look into the legal rights related to property of the indigenous community in tribal areas.
• To look into the constitutional perspectives of Scheduled Areas and property rights and their legality with respect to notified tribal areas.
• To examine the judicial pronouncements related to property rights of the indigenous community in India.

Hypotheses

The Indian government took over a sizable tribal populace when it gained independence. To safeguard the rights of tribal people and incorporate them into the country's development plans, the Indian government has developed several initiatives. Most importantly, the Indian Constitution contains provisions that allow discrimination in the tribes' favour and expressly recognise their rights. In this research paper, we addressed several topics, determined the best course of action, and examined the issues with the help of government policies, case laws, constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements etc. And found out some outcomes:

• Land alienation has a connection to the current socio-economic structure rather than being a 'structuralist-legalist' phenomenon.
• The gradual desensitization of tribal people because of land alienation violates their fundamental right to life.
• The ownership structure of nearby plain lands is connected to the dynamics of the tribal land issue.
• Rather than being a symbiotic relationship, non-tribals and tribals have a parasitic one.
• The tribal belt's growing industrialization has resulted in their destitution, uprooting, estrangement, and rights violations.
• The tribal population has experienced violent unrest and poverty because of unscrupulous forest policy.
• The decentralised developmental process, which involves grassroots voluntary organisations, has increased the tribal people's awareness of their rights.

Study of Variables

• Tribals: India refers to its tribals as Adivasi. The term "Adivasi" is used to refer to the many Indian tribes. Before the arrival of the Dravidians and Indo-Aryans, these tribes are said to have been the native inhabitants of India. Adivasi is a term used to describe a number of ethnic groups thought to have been the original occupants of the Indian subcontinent.
• Transfer of Property Act: An Indian law known as the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 governs the transfer of property in India. It has precise rules on what transfers are and aren't, as well as what conditions go along with them. It became operative on July 1st, 1882.
• Land Alienation: As implied by the term, alienation of property is the act of giving away or transferring ownership of real estate through a will, gift, or mortgage.
• Industrialisation: The process of shifting a country or region's economy from one centred on agriculture to one centred on manufacturing is known as industrialization. Mass production techniques that are mechanised are crucial to this shift.
• Scheduled Tribes: The population that has been most marginalised, secluded, and impoverished is the Scheduled Tribes (STs). In accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws, their land rights must be preserved and defended, particularly concerning land acquisition and tribal relocation.

Research Methodology

• The rally's most notable aspect—which many of us may have missed—was that the bulk of the demonstrators were impoverished tribal people who were landless and had endured decades of injustice due to the lack of land titles. Their main demands were tied to property rights (The Hindu, 2018).
• According to Byrd and Heyer (2008), the topic of indigenous land rights has already garnered attention in the global development discourse. Native Americans are increasingly being excluded from their natural assets and lands on a global scale. The UNDRIP (UN, 2007; Champagne, 2013) outlines the indigenous peoples' explicit rights to the resources, territories, and lands that they have long occupied, as well as their intentions to safeguard those rights. The significance of the lengthy procession serves as a reminder of how important the matter of tribal ownership of land is.
• The nation is home to 705 tribal ethnic groups, each with their own distinctive culture and way of living (The Government of India, 2011). However, it is generally accepted that nearly every ethnic group is economically and socially marginalised, denied access to resources, and socially excluded.
• Five out of ten Scheduled Tribes (STs) members live in the lowest income bracket, making them the poorest group in India. The Government of India (2016) reports that 45.9% of ST members are in their lowest wealth bracket, compared to 26.6% of the Scheduled Castes (SCs), 18.3% of Other Economically Disadvantaged Groups (OBC), 9.7% of other castes, and 25.3% of individuals whose caste is unknown.

Issue 1: To Understand the Geographical Property Rights of the Indigenous Communities in India

Historical and Geographical Evolution of Tribal Communities in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal

Evolution Regarding Property Rights in Andhra Pradesh

The past incidents related to tribal land rights in Andhra Pradesh and the rest of central India are characterised by recurrent struggles against the government's claim to own forest land on and around the hills, as well as against the transfer of agricultural land in the valleys to moneylenders and non-tribal farmers. State governments have made several attempts to uphold the legal rights of tribes to farmland in the valleys, particularly in an effort to quell uprisings.

However, they have managed to keep control of the forest, forcing many tribesmen to live in precarious conditions for many generations. There is some optimism for reform on the part of forest-dwelling populations, many of which are tribal communities, The "Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Residents (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006", also known as the "Forest Rights Act".1.

However, in the last 50–60 years, risks of eviction due to development projects—such as dams and mines—have increased. In the northern region of Andhra Pradesh, persistent efforts against externally driven resource exploitation led to the creation of a distinct legislative area with strong land rights, still commonly known today as "the Agency" (see Figure 1.1).  This procedure took place in three independent phases:

• in 1839, the British colonial authority established the territory as a separate administrative entity;
• in 1882, the state declared ownership of all forested land; and in
• 1917, private agricultural land was set aside for tribal farmers.

Within the Agency itself, muttadars—local hill zamindars who were appointed and ultimately answerable to the larger zamindars on the plains—created a scattered system of authority. The 1840s saw the creation of land tenures surrounding the city of Vijayawada in Krishna District, which is located south of the current Visakhapatnam District.

This arrangement was based on previous patterns of ownership and use. Large tracts of land were not the only thing that higher- and middle-caste groups could control; their land also tended to be of higher quality than that of lower caste members, including accessibility to water sources (Hjejle 1988).

Even with the use of zamindars as middlemen, the former (and larger) the Visakhapatnam District, which was on the edge of British colonial rule and on the boundary between the Madras and the Bengal presidencies, proved to be difficult to control. There were regular violent uprisings, particularly in the hills. The remedy, decided in 1839, was to create the so-called Agency to remove seven-eighths of the district's territory from the usual rule of law due to the lack of adequate forces to control the situation.

The Agency was given the authority to create special courts and to change or remove any laws that were not thought to be appropriate for the region. The District Collector, who served as the British Government's "Agent," eventually accumulated significant authority; for this reason, people in coastline Andhra Pradesh still refer to "the Agency."

In spite of this, the uprisings persisted and worsened after the Madras Forest Act of 1882 was approved, granting the government possession of the majority of Agency land under the heading of "reserved forest." This covered all area that was subject to shifting cultivation, or podu as it is known locally . The land was not consistently farmed. Declaring property on hill slopes unsuitable for agriculture was another tactic. 4 This procedure made sure that the government acquired the majority of the land in the hilly Visakhapatnam Agency, recognising only the flatter valley land as private property.

The first legal protection for private land in the Agency was impacted by at least a century of recurrent upheaval. Aiming to control land transfers as well as the prevalence of unjust rates of interest that indirectly resulted in loss of land when farmers were unable to repay their debts, the Agency's Tracts Interest and Lands Transfer Act 1917 was likewise a product of the Madras Presidency. More specifically, no land may be given to an outsider by a member of a so-called "hill tribe." However, in order to allow the land alienation to proceed, the Agent could provide an exemption from this provision .

As things stand, the Land Transfer Regulation forbids the transfer of any kind of land to anybody other than an Adivasi individual or a recognised Adivasi cooperative association. Importantly, this also includes government-owned forest land. According to the law, any land discovered to be in the control of a non-tribal person must be returned to its original owner because it is assumed that every land in the state's designated areas had previously belonged to a native member. Benami titles, or nominal tribal landholdings while the true recipient is a non-tribal individual, are likewise forbidden.

The Agency regions were added to India's list of Scheduled regions at the time of independence. However, many of the people it was intended to defend were left out when its borders were established. One such area that was designated as "non-scheduled" was the Srungavarapukota (S. Kota) Mandal, a subdivision of modern-day Vizianagaram. This territory had previously been a part of the wider colonial Visakhapatnam Agency and had historically been a forested area populated by indigenous communities.

Even though the issue has been acknowledged by the authorities, there doesn't appear to be a planned status for the disputed site anytime soon. In fact, it's quite possible that non-tribal hands already possess the majority of it.

Evolution Regarding Property Rights in Orissa

Based on data from the 2011 census. Thirteen of the 62 tribal tribes that have been acknowledged as "Primitive Tribal Groups" are also listed as Scheduled Tribes. Schedule V of the Indian Constitution covers 44.7% of the State's territory. The largest tribe in the state is the Kondha, sometimes known as the Kandha, followed by the Santhals and the Gonds. The Gonds are settled farmers primarily found in the Nabarangpur area, whilst the Santhals are primarily found in the Mayurbhanj district.

• In the years following independence, Odisha passed several progressive laws pertaining to land reform. The Odisha Land Reforms Act (1960) is recognised as a seminal piece of legislation that provided secure land tenure to individuals without land.
• The distribution of land to the landless was stressed by the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act of 1962.
• By giving them ownership to the land, the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (1972) regularised the situation of landless families occupying government land.
• The purpose of the Land Ceiling Act (1974) was to take surplus land from landed peasants and provide it to the landless.
• Early 1970s Odisha events show that the political orientation and will were towards establishing socio-economic justice through land distribution that was equitable and, more precisely, by guaranteeing land tenure security.

Nevertheless, despite the numerous progressive land reform legislation that were in place, substantial biases hindered tribal people from obtaining land rights. The National Commission on Backward-Territories Development noted in 1980 that "many major irrigation schemes were located in the tribal areas, resulting in the submergence of large lands belonging to the tribals in a number of areas with new industrial and mining complexes." Indigenous labour had been employed in the activities to severely destroy forests. The landlord class used this tactic to drive the tribespeople out of the forests. This made the divide between the landed aristocracy of the non-tribal areas and the tribal landless even wider. In 1969, the Planning Commission's Committee on Plan Projects delivered an analysis on the Indigenous Development Programmes, which included scathing remarks regarding the alienation of tribal territory. The committee observed that, in spite of the law, tribal lands were transferred into non-tribal hands in numerous regions. Sample studies conducted in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and a few other states have revealed that large-scale transfers have occurred without the collector's or other appropriate authorities' consent, as required by law. Tribal people lose their land to various government initiatives, including those involving dams, national highways, railroads, mining, and industries. Three factors contributed to the highest numbers of tribal displacement:

• Dam construction
• Mining and industrial plants
• Animal sanctuaries and national parks

For example:

• In the early 1940s, the interstate Machhkund Hydel Plan in Koraput not only resulted in a significant number of Adivasi and Dalit human displacements, but it also had an equivalent impact on the ecosystem and the way of life for those impacted. Just 20% of the 2938 affected families in total received rehabilitation, and at that time, no displaced Dalits received rehabilitation.
• The Vedanta Resources of the UK has entered into a contract with the Odisha government to extract aluminium in the Niyamgiri Hills. The proposed acquisition of 1444.666 hectares of land from the Dangaria Kondhs in Kalahandi district will have an impact on 2,500 families living in 24 villages throughout three Gramme Panchayats—Chandragari, Maikanch, and Kodipari.

Evolution of Property Rights of Tribals in West Bengal

In general, West Bengal's tribal community is even more impoverished than those in other states, with their circumstances not considerably better than the national average. The subject of tribal land rights has not received enough attention, even in spite of progressive land reform legislation and political will to put them into action. It is discovered that a sizable portion of the tribal community is still landless despite the issuance of land titles. West Bengal, the fourth-most populous state in India, is situated in the country's east. With 5,296,953 members, tribal members of West Bengal make up 5.8% of the state's overall population and 5.1% of all tribal people in the nation. Diversity is more important than the state's tribal population count. According to a high-level expert council on socio-economic, health, and education status of indigenous peoples communities of India, the state's tribal population is not only more impoverished than the national average overall, but it is also less fortunate than the tribal populations of other states. Following independence, West Bengal passed four significant pieces of legislation that set the stage for a progressive era: the West Bengal Bargadar Act of 1950; the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act of 1953; the West Bengal Land Reforms (WBLR) Act of 1955; and the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans, and Fishermen Act of 1975.

The Scheduled Indian Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, also known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), is a very potent central act that is also in place. It is widely known and plays a crucial role in acknowledging the ownership rights of tribal people and other traditional forest dwellers over the land and forest products they have been using for generations.
 

West Bengal Tribal Land Rights: A Few Initiatives

In terms of implementing vesting ceiling excess lands, redistributing land to the landless, and defending sharecroppers' rights to cultivate their land, West Bengal is regarded as one of the advanced states. Socially and economically marginalised groups, like SCs and STs, have traditionally been given priority in these land reform programmes. The state's actions to support tribal land rights, whether new or ongoing, can be categorised under four different headings:

• Land distribution to the tribal people without land: The state has been giving patta to landless and land-poor households as a continuation of an earlier land redistribution plan, giving preference to tribal groupings. 1,132,003.86 acres of threshold surplus vested land, or 17.76 percent of the total amount of land reform beneficiaries, have been handed by the state to 3,254,896 landless rural poor people, including 578,315 tribal households.
   
• By virtue of the Forest Rights Act of 2006: Households belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the state's forest border areas were deprived of their entitlement to land and forest resources. In 126 revenue villages, or non-revenue forest mouzas, the state carried out a cadastral survey. Government-issued administrative orders have resulted in the conversion of 94 forest settlements into revenue villages. The government has granted 738 Community Forest Rights (CFR) and distributed pattas of Individual Forest Rights (IFR).
   
• Preventing the alienation of tribal lands and restoring those that have been alienated: Several development initiatives in West Bengal have resulted in the displacement or impact of around 1.4 million indigenous people. There is no concrete evidence of tribal property alienation brought on by non-tribal invasion, with the exception of displacement brought on by development. However, data indicates that it is a reality in a number of districts, including Paschim Medinipur, Bankura, Birbhum, and Purulia. Noting that tribal land's rights of return are non-transferable unless approved by the proper authority, the state had sent out a notification. This should aid in limiting the transfer of unlawful land.

West Bengal's Current Situation: An Analysis

Tribal communities have benefited from the state of West Bengal's efforts to strengthen their land rights in three ways:

• They have gained land ownership, including the ability to homestead
• Have secured the right to cultivate their land
• Have received significant protection from land alienation

The state's STs and other marginalised communities have benefited most from the land reform plan. There is no denying that the state has made significant progress in addressing tribal landlessness with all of these progressive measures, yet a significant section of the state's tribal population is still unable to secure their right to land (see Table 3). According to a fairly recent survey conducted among 16 tribal groups dispersed around the state, 23% of the households were landless. Despite the fact that the state has guaranteed RoR for thirty percent of FRA patta holders, the remaining patta holders have not been covered until needlessly long due to a lack of coordination between the departments of Forestry, Revenue, and Backward Class Welfare. Furthermore, the state rejects 9,254 claims for CFR and 87,333 requests for IFR (Government of India, 2018). Many households now feel uneasy about their rights to the land and forest commodities they have been consuming, which puts their lives in danger. The state hasn't been able to adequately handle the problems of tribal land rights, even in spite of the advanced land reform laws that have been passed and the political will to put them into action. When it comes to receiving agricultural land, homestead plots, and tenancy rights, tribal land reform beneficiaries make up a significant part of all land reform beneficiaries in the state. However, a significant percentage of tribal households that lack land still lack the ability to secure their land rights. Both the quantity and quality of the land are less than what many who acquired ownership under the land reform plan had anticipated. Land has become more fragmented as a result of population growth.

Legal Rights Related to the Property of the Indigenous Community

The Forest Rights Act's provisions for tribal people aim to protect indigenous Indians' individual and collective ownership of land, as well as their ability to exploit it and live in forests. Scheduled Tribes who live in forests and other indigenous peoples who have lived on these areas for many years now enjoy these rights, which they did not previously have. Members of the community of tribes that are recognised as Scheduled Tribes in a certain location under Indian law are referred to as forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes under that law. In addition, the Forest Rights Act grants other Traditional Forest Residents the right to assert their claims. Those who have lived on forest land for a period of three generations, or 75 years, before December 13, 2005, and who rely on it for their means of subsistence are considered other traditional forest dwellers.

• The Rights of Scheduled Tribes Who Live in Forests and Other Traditional Inhabitants of Forests:
• Utilisation of Land: The right to possess and reside on forest land, whether individually or collectively, belongs to the designated tribes and Other Indigenous Dwellers. The land may be used for self-cultivation by any member to support themselves.
• Rights of the Community: The right to enforce community rights, such as nistar or any other name that may be declared, including those used in Princely States, Zamindari, and other similar regimes, belongs to traditional forest residents.
• Possession of Some Forest Products: Minor forest products that are customarily gathered both within and outside the tribal hamlet belong to the forest residents. This includes bamboo, brushwood, honey, wax, medicinal herbs and plants, roots, etc.
• Rehabilitation in Case of Displacement: Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest inhabitants who had been forcibly removed from their forest property before December 13, 2005, without any legal recourse, are entitled to rehabilitation, including allocation of alternative lands.

All of the above rights are intended for both individuals and communities, according to the legislation. Therefore, the government may grant these rights to a person, a group, or a Gram Sabha. Furthermore, the building of schools, pharmacies, hospitals, anganwadis, fair pricing stores, telecommunications lines, bodies of water, canals, roads, vocational training facilities, etc. may be permitted on specific forest area by the Central Government. The legal rights are contingent upon specific requirements. Any legal rights are only applicable to residents who were residing on a specific forest land prior to December 13, 2005. When granted, this right will be inherited by successive generations of tribal communities; that being said, these rights are yours alone and cannot be curtailed in order to further the interests of another person.

Issue 2: To Look in the Constitutional Prospectives of Schedule Areas and Property Rights and Its Legality Concerning Notified Tribal Areas and Examine the Judicial Pronouncement Related to Property Rights of the Indigenous Community in India

Historical Perspective of the Problem

For a considerable amount of time, the tribal areas were inaccessible, which kept them outside of the land management system. They created an indigenous land management system of their own. The three main types of land ownership among the tribal people are:

• Communal land
• Land owned by clans
• Individual holdings

In addition to being a part of Indian princely states, some tribal areas were also subject to the British system of land revenues. These states did not have a common system of land tenure. Because there was no current land rights record or regular land settlement system, the tribes were therefore at the mercy of the Forest Departments, Petty Revenue Officers, and Landlords. There was a noticeable rise in the burden on tribal land when commercial introductions of land as an asset was introduced.

The opening of tribal areas because of development processes and the establishment of various irrigation, power, industrial, and mining projects marked the beginning of the problem of land alienation. Due to their poverty and lack of literacy, the tribal people were unable to utilise the legal remedies. The post-independence reorganisation of the States and the area's scheduling had a significant impact on tribal land.

Protective land-laws were not applied to many primarily tribal areas that had been outside of scheduled areas for a considerable amount of time. In tribal areas, the size of landholdings has decreased to varied degrees across different locations due to population pressure and land alienation. This has led to a decline in the number of indigenous farmers and an increase in other types of workers, including agricultural labourers. Tribal labourers also migrate to other regions because of the depletion of land resources and the scarcity of work opportunities in their home regions.

Constitutional Provisions
The main factor still preventing tribal people in India from maintaining their way of life, identity, and homelands is land loss. One would have anticipated a noticeable effect from the constitution's design, which was expressly intended to shield tribal homelands from precisely this kind of loss.Nonetheless, there is a great deal of inequality and incompleteness in the process of acknowledging Scheduled Tribes' traditional land rights. By appropriating these lands over time, the state and non-tribals have denied them access to their lands.

Despite federal and state legislation and constitutional protections for land rights, there has been a great deal of land alienation. In the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, justice (social, economic, and political) is promised. Numerous court decisions have interpreted the fundamental right to a life with dignity, along with several other rights necessary to ensure that this life is complete, as part of the right to life guaranteed by the 21st article of the Constitution.

One of the essential rights mentioned in Article 21is the freedom to survive. Tribal communities have been disproportionately targeted, having their lands and means of subsistence taken away from them as their resources are appropriated and used for the "greater good." When the Indian Constitution was first ratified, it guaranteed a fundamental right to property.

However, this right was gradually reduced with the pretence of facilitating land reform, and it was eventually repealed in 1979. Sadly, there is no such protection now that millions of tribal people's lands—some of which were the focus of these very land reform processes—are in jeopardy.

Fifth Schedule
Before moving on to a more in-depth examination, it will be helpful to quickly review some of the most important clauses in the Fifth Schedule, which is paragraphs long.

• Explains the concept of Scheduled Areas and adds that, subject to the rules outlined in the Schedule, the State's executive authority is extended to its Scheduled Areas. By making it apparent that these areas are under the state's "administration and control," this clause dispels any uncertainty about whether the state and its apparatus have overall authority over these areas. The judiciary, legislature, and executive branches of government have all exercised power within the broad definition of "administration and control" as defined by this clause, according to court rulings.
   
• Creates a Tribal Advising Council, or "TAC," which must be established in each state that has a Scheduled Area as well as in states where there is a significant tribal population. The TACs' role is to offer counsel on matters concerning the welfare and progress of these states' Scheduled Tribes.
   
• Through public notification, the governor has the authority to order that any specific Act of the State Legislature or Parliament apply only to certain exceptions and modifications, or not at all, to the state's Scheduled Area.
   
• The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and its numerous provisions are examined in Part I of this compendium. Article 244^[19] of the Indian Constitution read in conjunction with the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Special provisions are made for areas where Scheduled Tribes reside under the Indian Constitution. During the British era, many areas that were primarily inhabited by Adivasis were declared to be excluded or partially excluded. The Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas) Order of 1936 and the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874 applied to these areas.
  
  These areas were classified under the 5th and Sixth Schedules, accordingly, following independence and were subsequently designated as Scheduled Areas. Scheduled Areas were also established for other areas mainly inhabited by Adivasis. Additionally acknowledged in a number of rulings, the goal of Scheduled Areas is to maintain social, economic, and political justice, to uphold tribal autonomy, their culture, and their economic empowerment, as well as to maintain peace and responsible leadership.

Fundamental Rights

Unsurprisingly, the Constitution's Fundamental Rights Chapter (Part III) goes into considerable detail about the idea of equality.

• Equal protection under the law and equality before the law are recognised in Article 14. Law and provides access to it for everyone, both citizens and non-citizens. It is well established by the Constitution's provisions and a plethora of judicial precedents that the idea of merely "formal" equality has been rejected. Rather, the Constitution explicitly states that in order for equality to be fully meaningful, a "substantive" approach must be taken. As a result, in addition to the state's rejection of historical discrimination against groups and classes, real action must be taken to address the current effects of this historical discrimination.
   
• As part of this equality-focused framework, the Constitution acknowledges the Article 15, the right against discrimination, forbids the state from treating any citizen unfairly based on their religion, race, caste, sex, or geography. Infancy, or any of them. As part of this right, the Article argues that "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Tribes" must receive special treatment through affirmative action.
   
• Article 19(5) allows the State to impose special restrictions in order to protect the interests of the Scheduled Tribes members, even though every citizen is guaranteed the freedom of movement, residence, and property acquisition and disposal throughout the territory of India.
   
• The state is obligated by Article 38 to "secure a social order in which justice, social, economic, and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life," with a focus on reducing income inequality and eliminating status inequality between individuals and groups of people.
   
• Additionally, Article 39 imposes substantial obligations on the state to direct its policies in the direction of what has become referred to as "distributive justice," via respect to sufficient means of livelihood, the control and ownership of material resources, minimising the concentration of wealth in the economy, and other dimensions.
   
• Furthermore, Article 46 requires the state to safeguard Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised groups from social injustice and all forms of exploitation, as well as to advance their economic and educational interests.

It is necessary to always consider the Fifth Schedule and Article 244's provisions pertaining to Scheduled Tribes before conducting any textual analysis on a given factual scenario or issue. Collectively, these constitutional provisions create a special foundation for tribe homelands that have been designated as such through the process of scheduling such areas.

This is because it is acknowledged that indigenous or tribal peoples have historically suffered at the hands of people from the "mainland," including the colonisers, and that they need special constitutional protections to ensure that these historical wrongs are righted and never happen again. to the lawsuit can tolerate the high expense of the legal process and the length of time it takes to receive a favourable decision. This final provision is still the weakest in all the current land alienation.

Framing The Debate
A thorough examination of court decisions reveals how the national interest, the greater good, community worries, statutory requirements, and impartial judgements are changing over time. This indicates how jurisprudence is evolving or how some decisions remain undecided. Students studying tribal studies and judicial behaviour have been perplexed by this type of judicial behaviour. The unresolved arguments in India between community rights and the national interest, public welfare, or common welfare, are furthered by the more conspicuous judicial behaviour.

The defence of the rights of the marginalised communities becomes the central duty of the judiciary when the court recognises that social groups like tribes have limited legal access (as shown in the Niyamgiri case). According to Zilis (2018), citizens don't seem to support the court as much when they believe it is sympathetic to social groups that aren't as popular, like tribes. The court has made difficult, discretionary, and dissenting rulings throughout the years in an effort to strike a balance between community rights and common welfare.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial in order to understand the Indian judiciary's rulings regarding tribal rights. The judiciary gives careful consideration to its reputation in addition to addressing the complexities involved in balancing community interests with the public good. This can be attributed to the judiciary's dependence on the executive branch and its lack of direct enforcement authority.

The reputation of the court would be damaged if judicial orders and judgements were not followed (Dothan 2014, 7–61). As such, it provides thoughtful legal responses to the public interest, community rights, and national interest. The Supreme Court's approval of India's strategic approach is evident in its order pertaining to forest rights dated February 28, 2019.

The relationship between community concerns and the larger public good has become more complex as a result of multiple court decisions on the same case that address different intervenor applications. Legal mandates to protect and advance the rights of marginalised communities are subordinated to laws aiming at the greater public good, as the analysis of judicial interpretations reveals.

Judicial Pronouncement
Several judicial rulings have been made by the judiciary that illustrate different aspects of indigenous rights and responsibilities, particularly in relation to the larger framework for policy and protection. Still, considering four cases that form the chapter's core have been covered below.

Sardar Sarover Project.
The emphasis on a self-sufficient economy in postcolonial India allowed the country to experiment with different approaches to achieving this objective. India started a number of development projects as a result, including the building of dams. Unfortunately, because tribal areas have an abundance of natural resources, most development projects have been started there. If development projects were to begin in tribal areas, they would undoubtedly force them to bear an unfair share of the development's burden.

Due to the larger-scale displacement brought about by development, tribal communities became the leaders of the tribal movement, also known as the peoples' movement, throughout the nation. Against the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam planon the Narmada River in western India, there is a people's movement known as the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). When tribal communities' lands and resources are taken in the name of a greater public good, the NBA has taken deliberate steps to draw attention to the vulnerabilities that result.

Jawaharlal Nehru set the Sardar Sarovar Project's foundation stone on April 5, 1961. However, because of an interstate water dispute, the project's actual work did not start until April 1987. In the meantime, the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956 established the Narmada River Water Dispute Tribunal (NWDT). The NWDT Award, 1979 reflects the Tribunal's final order and ruling.

The purpose of the Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan Interstate Project was to use the Narmada River's water resources for the benefit of the residents of the funding states, primarily for the purpose of irrigating agricultural land and supplying electricity to villages.

According to the NWDT's final order and decision dated December 12, 1979, the Project was expected to cause the displacement of 6,147 families from 158 areas in Madhya Pradesh and 456 families from 27 villages in Maharashtra (Subsection IV; The government of India 1979). 48,250 people, or 76.36% of the total population, were indigenous and Dalit populations, according to the Government of India's (1986) estimate of 66,675 affected people.

• The Narmada dam dispute has been brought before the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. The Court has issued conflicting rulings, alternately siding with the affected parties, particularly the tribal communities, and the project authority. Over the years, the Supreme Court has heard a lengthy case regarding the Sardar Sarovar Project's rehabilitation.
  
  The Supreme Court recognised in B. D. Sharma v. the Union of India and And Ors (1991)that the project had been financed by the World Bank and that the progress was unsatisfactory. It directed that the dam be built as soon as possible. It believed that providing an 18-month notice prior to displacement, as required by the NWDT Award, did not ultimately serve the intended purpose. Nonetheless, it was decided that the the rehabilitation should be done carefully and methodically, and that a committee should be formed to handle any rehabilitation-related issues.
   
• The beneficial effects of the Sardar Sarovar Project were illustrated by the Supreme Court in 2000. According to the Court, the removal of tribal communities from the development area is not an infringement of their basic rights. Rehabilitating tribal communities after displacement would improve their lives and give them access to better facilities than where they had lived before. Additionally, the Court believed that rehabilitation in new settings would result in a gradually reintegration into mainstream society, thereby improving and advancing their situation.
   
• On February 8, 2017, the Court criticised the NBA for delaying the project and suggested that a three-person committee made up of retired Supreme Court judges look into the issues of rehabilitation and compensation before issuing the order later that day.
   
• The supreme court made monetary damages for the loss of land acceptable in place of land compensation. It frequently ignored the feelings and sense of identity associated with the land that the Samata ruling had recognised. It also mandated that the families impacted by the project leave the area by July 31, 2017.
  
  If they did not comply, it gave the state government permission to forcibly remove them. NIYAMGIRI JUDGEMENT Based on an affidavit from the state government, the Court noted that most of the claims made by the community and individuals over forest property in the proposed mining leasing area have been settled by offering an agreement. another place. However, there has been no request made to the Grame Sabha to actively consider the religious right of the tribal people and the OTFD to perform rituals on the Niyamgiri hilltop, which is also known Niyam Raja.
  
  The Court emphasised the need to safeguard and preserve their right to worship Niyam Raja, the highest peak of the Niyamgiri hill range, in the event that the Bauxite Mining Project (BMP) infringes upon their religious freedom. The Indian Constitution's Articles 25 and 26 were cited by the Court as justification.
  
  Despite the availability of crystal-clear legislative measures, the Supreme Court's ruling now determines the fate of tribal rights in the Odisha bauxite mining region, which might address the issue further in the not-so-distant future. Any decision that violates the Niyamgiri bauxite mining agreement could lead to the misappropriation of resources found in Scheduled Areas and the deterioration of tribal rights as guaranteed by the FRA and the PESA. There have also been some significant changes to this part of the law that deals with the special constitutional protections granted to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas.
  
  The Supreme Court's ruling in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradeshwas a seminal decision on the matter. The question before the court was whether it violated the laws prohibiting the alienation of Adivasi lands when a mining lease was granted to a non-tribal party in a Scheduled Area. The case's particular context was the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1970, which forbids anyone living in a Scheduled Area from giving land to anybody who isn't a Scheduled Tribe.
  
  Based on the premise that all land in Scheduled Areas is presumed to have been Adivasi land, the regulation states that no land should be transferred to non-Adivasis at this time. Additionally, any land that is currently owned by non-tribals should return to Scheduled Tribes if it is transferred. Whether or not this principle was broken by giving a non-tribal person a mining lease on government land was the question the Court had to decide.

Highlights of the Samata judgement include:

• No private industry or non-tribal person may lease government or forest land in the scheduled area; • The Court addressed the issue of non-settlement of lands in reserve forest enclosures in Borra panchayat by ordering the State government to promptly issue title documents to the tribe members occupying these lands. According to the Court, the government cannot grant mining leases on tribally owned enclosure lands;
   
• Leasing out land for mining operations to non-tribal individuals in scheduled areas is prohibited by the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution;
   
• The 73rd Constitution Amendment Act and the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act were recognised by the court, which reiterated the need to grant tribal people the right to self-governance by stating that Gramme Sabhas shall be competent to safeguard and preserve community resources

Conclusion
Native Indian states of India such as Andra Pradesh , West Bengal and Orissa have differing Property rights. The Tribes of Andhra Pradesh have witnessed land rights conflicts due to infrastructural developments and mining projects. Even with legal safeguards like the Panchayats Act, putting these legal safeguards into practice is still difficult. There has been various cases of relocation without compensation, which resulted in conflicts.

Along with the tribes of Andhra Pradesh the tribes of West Bengal have also suffered and struggled with the disposition of land and its titles. Even after the implementation of ; and reforms many indigenous or tribals have remained landless. They were made vulnerable when they were denied traditional land rights and the poor application of laws.

Similar difficulties were faced by the tribes in Orissa especially due to the industrial projects and mines. In conclusion, even though all the states mentioned above have provisions to safeguard the property rights of Tribal people it is very difficult to put those roles into practice. There are various laws but if these laws are implemented properly then the issues related to the land dispossession, alienation would be solved to some extent.

In light of this, the tribal communities look into other strategies to uphold and advance their legal rights. The current situation suggests that social movements, primarily those that interact directly with the Indian judiciary, have been used to pursue the safeguarding of tribal rights. The Samata ruling was widely applauded by tribal members and Its attempts to tackle the difficulties of striking a balance between the interests of Indian tribal communities and the general public. But the courts have also rendered decisions that frequently disregard the vital sources of income for tribal communities.

The possibility of different interpretations of the laws safeguarding tribal rights arises from the judicial intervention in tribal rights, and it is possible that these interpretations will not all favour tribal rights. Sometimes, conflicting interpretations lead to the subversion of local laws in order to further the general welfare. Simultaneously, an excessive dependence on the legal system can occasionally put the rights holders in danger. Certain judicial rulings made recently seem to suggest that Indian tribal rights are not entirely certain.