The L.N.D. Peta Gram Panchayat (GP), situated in Polavaram Mandal of Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh, has emerged as the focal point of a complex legal and administrative discourse concerning its continued classification as a Scheduled Area. Originally part of the erstwhile West Godavari District, this Gram Panchayat has undergone significant structural and demographic shifts over the years, giving rise to questions about the applicability of Scheduled Area provisions in its current context.
There are certain constitutional protections and land transfer regulations intended to safeguard tribal communities that are in force in the Scheduled Areas of Andhra Pradesh. If a Scheduled Area is de-notified, tribal communities risk losing their rights over land in particular.
Historical Reorganization and Current Status
Historically, L.N.D. Peta GP consisted of three revenue villages—L.N.D. Peta, Nagampalem, and Saripallikunta. In 1994, the government undertook a bifurcation process that led to the formation of a new Gram Panchayat, Jillellagudem. This new entity included Nagampalem, Saripallikunta, and a significant portion of L.N.D. Peta (specifically, survey numbers 21 to 633). What remained—survey numbers 1 to 20—formed the residual L.N.D. Peta GP.
Both Jillellagudem and the remaining L.N.D. Peta GP were listed as part of the Scheduled Area under the constitutional framework applicable to Polavaram Mandal. However, the residual GP’s demographic composition began to shift, with the Scheduled Tribe (ST) population dwindling significantly. According to non tribals in LND Pet village, only 15 ST voters were recorded among the total 2,358 voters in the village—making it virtually impossible to conduct elections under ST reservation mandates.
Legal Proceedings and High Court Intervention
In light of these challenges, non-tribals from L.N.D. Peta filed two writ petitions (WP Nos. 6304 and 6312 of 2020) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking de-notification of their village from the Scheduled Area category. They also requested that elections be allowed under the general category, rather than under ST-reserved seats. The High Court, in a common order dated September 27, 2022, directed the Union Government and the District Authorities of the Eluru District to consider their representation—along with a 2002 letter from the District Panchayat Officer—and take appropriate action within four months.
Despite multiple follow-ups by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PR&RD) Department and the Tribal Welfare Department, no action was taken, leading the petitioners to file a contempt case (CC No. 6444 of 2023) against the officials of PR&RD, Tribal Welfare and the Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI for failure to comply with the High Court’s order.
Competing Narratives on Tribal Presence
One of the major points of contention relates to the actual tribal population within L.N.D. Peta GP, especially in light of the Polavaram Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Program. Local tribal leader Poloju Nageswara Rao claimed that over 600 ST voters, displaced from Kondrukota and other tribal villages, had been resettled in the L.N.D. Peta R&R colony, and that they participated in the 2024 State Assembly Elections.
However, the reports of the PR&RD Department are inconsistent with this claim. According to their records, only four ST households—comprising a total of 21 individuals—had been officially rehabilitated in L.N.D. Peta under the Polavaram Project. This sharp contrast in reported figures has added another layer of complexity to the administrative decision-making process, raising questions about voter rolls, domicile status, and the timing of rehabilitation.
Administrative Constraints and Policy Considerations
The Tribal Welfare Department proposed three potential resolutions: (a) reconstituting the Gram Panchayat by merging it with tribal-dominated neighboring areas, (b) reassessing the ST population in the post-resettlement phase, or (c) referring the matter to the Andhra Pradesh Tribes Advisory Council (APTAC) for its opinion.
However, the PR&RD Department noted that merging L.N.D. Peta GP with adjacent villages was not feasible due to recently held elections in those areas and the specific scope of the petitioners’ original legal plea before the High Court, which did not request such a reorganization.
Furthermore, the PR&RD Department confirmed that the residual area of L.N.D. Peta GP lies entirely within the constitutionally notified Scheduled Area, and that any change to this status must follow constitutional procedures involving the President of India and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs, maintain that the Ministry of Home Affairs was mistakenly arrayed in the original writs and it is not the concerned department as per business rules.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Article 244 of the Constitution stipulates that the administration of Scheduled Areas is governed by the Fifth Schedule, while Paragraph 6 of that Schedule empowers the President to declare, alter, or de-notify Scheduled Areas. Although demographic composition—particularly the presence of a majority ST population—is considered in such decisions, it is not the sole criterion.
Historically, the Dhebar Commission (1961), in its Report of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission, outlined four key criteria for declaring an area as a Scheduled Area: a preponderance of tribal population, compactness and reasonable size, underdevelopment, and significant economic disparity affecting tribals. Notably, the term "preponderance" was used deliberately to signify predominance, not numerical majority.
This principle is reinforced by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and by the 1995 Bhuria Committee Report, which emphasized that influxes of non-tribal populations should not be grounds for de-scheduling an area originally designated as Scheduled. The Committee argued that the integrity of the Scheduled Area must be maintained, even if the tribal population has become a minority in certain pockets over time.
The Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar & Others (2010), also affirmed that Scheduled Area identification is an executive function, and that demographic shifts are not uncommon. Judicial intervention in such administrative matters was ruled out, reaffirming the authority of the executive branch in maintaining or altering Scheduled Area designations.
Conclusion: Navigating the Grey Zones of Policy and Ground Reality
The L.N.D. Peta case represents a complex intersection of legal directives, constitutional mandates, demographic shifts, and on-ground realities. While the non-tribal residents argue for functional elections and cite diminished tribal representation, constitutional and policy safeguards caution against using population figures as the sole basis for altering Scheduled Area status. If a declining tribal population were the only criterion, most villages in the Scheduled Areas of Andhra Pradesh would be compelled to undergo de-notification.
A resolution demands a careful, multi-agency review that upholds tribal protections while responding to local democratic needs. Whether through reorganization, updated demographic surveys, or consultation with APTAC, any future course must align with constitutional provisions, respect tribal rights, and address the governance vacuum affecting the village.
Until such clarity is achieved, the L.N.D. Peta GP remains a contested terrain—both legally and politically—within the Scheduled Area framework of Andhra Pradesh.
Comments