Opinion: Strengthen tribal land rights: Bridge gap between law and reality
Tribal land legislation is ultimately not about restricting transactions; it is about preserving cultures, and securing indigenous livelihoods
By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao
Land is not merely an economic asset for Scheduled Tribes in India; it is the foundation of their identity, culture, livelihood, and social existence. Recognising the historical vulnerability of tribal communities to exploitation and displacement, various States have enacted special laws to protect tribal lands from alienation, a constitutional obligation. Yet a closer examination of these laws reveals a fragmented legal landscape, with significant variations in the level of protection available across the country.
Also Read
The Fifth Schedule to the Constitution empowers Governors to make regulations restricting or prohibiting the transfer of tribal lands in Scheduled Areas. Over the decades, States have adopted different approaches to implementing this constitutional mandate. While some have enacted stringent laws that virtually prohibit the transfer of tribal lands to non-tribals, most others permit such transfers subject to administrative approval.
Protective Frameworks
Among the strongest protective frameworks are those in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation I of 1970, prohibits the transfer of land in Scheduled Areas to non-tribals. Non-tribals may transfer land only to tribals, tribal cooperatives, or the government. Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh too prohibit such transfers but permit non-tribals to transfer their lands to other non-tribals with administrative approval. However, the effectiveness of these strong legal protections remains open to question.
The scale of tribal land alienation revealed through official data is itself alarming. In Telangana, authorities have detected 52,118 cases involving 2,06,028.96 acres of land. Of these, 50,805 cases covering 2,00,574.24 acres have been disposed of.
While this suggests considerable administrative effort, the outcome on the ground is far less encouraging. Only 22,815 cases resulted in the restoration of land to tribal communities, covering 81,334.91 acres. Thus, despite decades of implementation, less than 40 per cent of the land involved in disposed cases has ultimately been restored to tribal ownership.
A similar analysis of official data from Andhra Pradesh presents an equally disturbing picture, although with significant variations across tribal regions. As of 30 April 2026, authorities had detected 30,569 cases of tribal land alienation involving 156,025.63 acres. Of these, 29,766 cases covering 151,626 acres had been disposed of, representing about 97 per cent of both cases and acreage.
Yet the crucial measure of success is not the number of cases disposed of but the extent of land actually restored to tribal communities. The data show that only 12,774 cases, representing 43 per cent of the disposed cases, resulted in restoration, covering 57,082 acres or 38 per cent of the land involved. In other words, a majority of the alienated land covered by disposed cases has not returned to tribal possession.
Restoring Land
These figures reveal a striking gap between administrative and legal protection and actual outcomes. Strong laws on paper have not necessarily translated into effective restoration on the ground. The persistence of large-scale alienation despite decades of legal intervention raises serious concerns about administrative apathy and collusion in implementation, enforcement, and access to justice for tribal communities.
Similar protective regimes exist in Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, where the acquisition of land by outsiders is heavily prohibited through the Inner Line Permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation and other laws.
As infrastructure projects, mining, industrialisation and urban expansion intensify, protecting tribal lands requires updated land records, accessible grievance redress mechanisms, proactive restoration programmes, stronger enforcement, and meaningful participation of Gram Sabhas in land governance
Several other States, including Rajasthan, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, and Bihar, have enacted laws aimed at preventing tribal land alienation and providing mechanisms for restoring unlawfully transferred lands. In Jharkhand and Bihar, the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act have become enduring symbols of tribal resistance against land dispossession. Odisha’s legal framework similarly restricts transfers to non-tribals without prior approval and provides for the restoration of illegally alienated lands.
Not all States, however, follow an absolute prohibition model. Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, and several Union Territories permit transfers under specified conditions, usually subject to approval by the Collector, a competent authority, or the Gram Sabha.
Maharashtra has introduced an important innovation by mandating consultation with the Gram Sabha before permitting land transfers in Scheduled Areas. This reflects the spirit of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), which recognises Gram Sabhas as custodians of community resources.
A notable feature of many State laws is the provision for the restoration of alienated tribal lands. These provisions acknowledge that historical injustices have resulted in extensive tribal land loss despite legal safeguards. Restoration laws in Maharashtra, Kerala, Odisha, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Bihar, and Jharkhand seek to reverse these injustices, although implementation remains uneven. Kerala, in some category of alienation of tribal agricultural lands, permits illegal alienation of lands and instead offers alternative lands.
The legal framework also reveals significant gaps. In Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the strong protections available in Scheduled Areas do not extend to tribal lands situated outside those areas. Karnataka protects only lands assigned by the government, leaving privately acquired tribal lands vulnerable. In Manipur, hill areas remain outside the scope of the principal land law. Tamil Nadu lacks comprehensive legislation on tribal land alienation and relies largely on administrative standing orders applicable only to certain tribal groups.
The situation in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh illustrates another concern. The erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, which restricted land transfers to non-permanent residents, was repealed following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Consequently, no comparable protective legislation, at present, governs land transfers in these regions.
Land Governance
These variations raise important questions about the effectiveness of tribal land governance in India. Constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes are intended to secure their economic and cultural survival. Yet the degree of protection available to a tribal family often depends on the State in which it resides. Such disparities undermine the broader constitutional objective of ensuring justice and equality for tribal communities.
The experience of the past several decades demonstrates that legislation alone is insufficient. Even in States with strong laws, tribal land alienation continues through benami transactions, fraudulent records, manipulation of legal procedures, and weak enforcement. Effective protection requires updated land records, accessible grievance redress mechanisms, proactive restoration programmes, and meaningful participation of Gram Sabhas in land governance.
As India continues to pursue infrastructure development, mining, industrialisation, and urban expansion, pressures on tribal lands are intensifying. Strengthening tribal land rights is, therefore, not merely a legal necessity but a constitutional obligation. A review of State-level laws suggests the need for greater uniformity in minimum standards of protection, stronger restoration mechanisms, and enhanced recognition of community ownership and self-governance.
The constitutional promise made to Scheduled Tribes cannot be fulfilled unless their relationship with land is effectively protected. Tribal land legislation is ultimately not about restricting transactions; it is about safeguarding communities, preserving cultures, and ensuring that development does not come at the cost of India’s most vulnerable indigenous populations.
(The author is a practising lawyer, and tribal rights activist)
