Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL ETC. ETC.ANDSMT. LAKSHMI BAI PATILV
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/07/1990
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1771 1990 SCR (3) 497
1990 SCC (4) 102 JT 1990 (3) 329
1990 SCALE (2)144
ACT:
Constitution of India: Article 31A (1) (a)--Provisions
fixing ceiling-Whether essential in a statute concerning
agrarian reform.
Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964:
Chapter 11A--Section 18A-J--Amendment Act, 1976--Whether
constitutionally valid.
HEADNOTE:
The respondents in the civil appeals and the petitioner
in the writ petition were landlords in Goa, whose lands were
in the possession of the cultivating tenants. Prior to the
enactment of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy
(5th Amendment) Act, 1976 the nature of the rights of the
landlords and tenants were governed by the Goa. Daman and
Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. By Chapter III of the
1964 Act the landlord was permitted to resume his land for
bona fide personal cultivation, subject to a ceiling. Chap-
ter III, however, was to come into force only on a notifica-
tion for the purpose, which was never issued. The impugned
5th Amendment omitted Chapter III from the 1964 Act and in
its place included Chapter IIA. By the provisions of section
18A of Chapter IIA the land belonging to a landlord not in
his cultivating possession on the tiller’s day got trans-
ferred to the tenant-in-possession for a price to be paid to
the landlord.
The respondents filed writ applications in the Court of
the Judicial Commissioner challenging the validity of the
5th Amendment Act. The writ petitions were allowed by the
Judicial Commissioner who held that the Amendment Act vio-
lated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and that the
protection of Article 31A was not available as the scheme of
the Amendment Act did not constitute agrarian reform.
498
During the pendency of the present appeals the impugned
Amendment Act along with the main Act were included in the
9th Schedule of the Constitution. The writ petition filed in
this Court under Article 32 has challenged this constitu-
tional amendment as illegal and ultra vires.
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the
respondentslandlords that fixation of ceiling was the heart
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
and soul of agrarian reform; that provisions regarding
ceiling were essential for a statute enacted as a measure of
agrarian reform and in their absence the same could not
claim protection of Article 31A of the Constitution; that in
the absence of provisions for ceiling the impugned Amendment
Act had bestowed undeserved benefit on the tenants at the
cost of the landlords, without reference to the respective
areas in their possession. In this connection it was submit-
ted that in many a case, a cultivating tenant in possession
of lands under different landlords might be having far
larger area of land than his landlords and there could not
be any preference to clothing such a tenant with title to
the land at the cost of his comparatively poor landlords.
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petition this
Court,
HELD: (1) It is well settled that the protection of
Article 31A is limited to the laws which serve the purpose
of agrarian reform. [504D]
(2) It cannot be denied that the appropriately enacted
statutes having provisions for fixing ceiling of holdings do
fall in the category of legislation for agrarian reform, but
that proposition does not say and cannot be interpreted as
holding that fixing ceiling areas is a basis and essential
feature of agrarian reform without which a law cannot be
included in the category. A proper statute even without
including provisions regarding ceiling may be entitled to
the protection of Article 31A provided it is otherwise a
measure of agrarian reform. [505C, F]
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959]
Supp. 1 SCR 489; Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S.B. Kamble &
Ors., [1975] 3 SCR 885 and Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Ant.
v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1973] 1 SCR 258, referred to.
(3) The title to the land shall vest in the tiller and
the landlord shall get the compensation. Earlier also his
right to resume the land for personal cultivation was con-
siderably restricted by the provisions of the 1964 Act. As a
result of the impugned 5th Amendment Act he has been
499
divested of this limited right for a price, and the tiller
shall no more be under a threat of dispossession. The im-
pugned provisions must therefore be accepted as a measure of
land reform. [509G-H; 510A]
(4) The argument of the respondents that in absence of
provisions fixing ceiling on the area of land which can be
held by a person a statute cannot be accepted as a measure
of land reform is, accordingly, rejected. The 5th Amendment
Act is. therefore, entitled to the protection of Article 31A
and it cannot be struck down on the ground of violation of
Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. [510A-B]
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959]
Supp. 1 SCR 489; Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must. Mazirunnes-
sa, [1962] 1 SCR 724; Purushothaman Nambudiri v. The State
of Kerala, [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 753; Fida Ali & Ors. v. State
of Jammu & Kashmir, [1975] 1 SCR 340; Dattatraya Govind
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] 2 SCR 790; K.K.
Kochuni v. The State of Madras, [1960] 3 SCR 887 and Sanjeev
Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. &
Anr., [1983] 1 SCR 1000, distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1314 to
1318 of 1979.
Appeals by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
4.4.1979 of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman & Diu in
Special Civil Application (Writ Petition) Nos. 75,76, 77 of
1977, 103 and 111 of 1978.
AND
Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.V.S.
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, S.S. Ray, Y.S. Chitaley, Joachin Dias,
A.B. Nadkarni, Arun Madan, Ms. A. Subhashini, S. Ganesh and
R. Swamy for the Appellants/Petitioners.
Manohar S. Usgaocar, F.S. Nariman, G.L. Sanghi, M.N.
Phadke, R.F. Nariman, S.K. Mehta, Atul Nauda, Aman Vachher,
Mrs. Nineti Sharma, S.M. Usgaocar and M.K. Dua for the
Respondents.
500
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.V. Rangam, S. Lotlakar, A.N. Rajan and Ms. Sarla
Chandra for the Intervener.
SHARMA, J. The civil appeals No. 1314 to 1318 of 1979 by
certificate are directed against the decision of the Judi-
cial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu, declaring the Goa,
Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (5th Amendment) Act,
1976, as unconstitutional. The respondents are landlords in
Goa. The lands were in possession of the tenants who were
cultivating the same and paying rent to the respondents. The
respondents were divested of their title in the lands by the
provisions of the impugned Act which came in force in 1976
vesting the same in the tenants. The respondents filed five
writ applications in the court of the Judicial Commissioner
challenging the validity of the Amendment Act. The writ
petitions were allowed by the impugned judgment. It has been
held that the Act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Consti-
tution and the protection of Article 31A is not available as
the scheme of the Act does not constitute agrarian reform.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent-
writ petitioners that the landlords in Goa are generally
small land-holders and their condition is not better than
that of the tenants and in that view the Act divesting the
landlords of their title in the land and veting the same in
the tenants suffers from the vice of illegal discrimination.
A similar Act was earlier passed by the Maharashtra Legisla-
ture also which has been found to be constitutionally valid.
The writ petitioners have, before the court below, success-
fully argued that the decision in that case is not applica-
ble inasmuch as the Maharashtra Act contains provisions
fixing ceiling to which the other provisions are subject to,
while there is no such restriction in the present Act. The
result is that although the Maharashtra Act had to be upheld
as a measure of agrarian reform and thus protected by Arti-
cle 31A of the Constitution, the present Act cannot be so
interpreted.
3. During the pendency of these appeals the impugned
Amendment Act along with the main Act were included in the
9th Schedule of the Constitution and the assent of the
President was received on the 26th of August, 1984. Smt.
Lakshmibai Narayan Patil, the writ petitioner in the three
of the cases in the court of Judicial Commissioner (respond-
ent in Civil Appeals No. 1314, 1315 and 1316 of 1979) has
challenged the constitutional amendment as illegal and ultra
vires by filing an application under Article 32 of the
Constitution which has
501
been numbered as Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988.
4. By the impugned Amendment Act, Chapter IIA has been
included in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Chapter III has
been deleted and some consequential changes have been made
in some other sections. Chapter IIA deals with "Special
rights and privileges of tenants" as indicated by the head-
ing. Broadly speaking, by the provisions of s. 18A of this
Chapter the land belonging to a landlord not in his culti-
vating possession on the tiller’s day gets transferred to
the tenant-inpossession for a price to be paid to the land-
lord. The expression ’tenant’ has been given a larger mean-
ing under the Act by s. 4. By the second proviso of s. 4 a
sub-tenant cultivating any land on or after 1.7. 1962 has to
be deemed to be a lawfully cultivating tenant notwithstand-
ing the fact that the creation of sub-tenancy might have
been prohibited by any law, and the tenant prior to the
creation of the sub-tenancy (who may be referred to as
intermediary tenant) is not to be treated as a tenant. The
price of the land in question has to be determined and the
payment made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
IIA. Separate provisions have been made with respect to
special cases where tenant is a minor or has been evicted by
the landlord before the tiller’s day. The provisions of S.
18-J provide for the resumption and disposal of the land not
purchased by the tenant by reason of purchase being ineffec-
tive under s. 18C or s. 18H or due to the failure of the
tenant to take steps under s. 18B within time. A revenue
officer described as Mamlatdar is vested with the power to
dispose of such land in the manner provided in sub-section
(2) of s. 18J. Such land has to be disposed of in the order
of priority, whereunder 75% of such land is to be disposed
of by sale to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes and thereafter the remaining land to serv-
ing members of the Defence Forces of the country or ex-
servicemen or freedom fighters who agree to cultivate the
land personally. If the land still remains undisposed of, it
first goes to agricultural labourers and thereafter to
landless persons. If some of the land still remains avail-
able, it has to be sold to a co-operative farming society.
Section 18-K puts a restriction on transfer of the land
which the tenant acquires by purchase under the Chapter.
Only with the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar any trans-
fer whether by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or
assignment can be made.
5. If the land-owner is himself cultivating it, there
being no tenant or a deemed tenant he continues to be in
possession without any curtailment of his rights. On the
other hand, in a case where the tenant
502
after getting a tenancy from the landlord inducts another
person as a sub-tenant who cultivates the same, the benefits
of the impugned provisions go to him and not to the tenant.
The object of the Amending Act is thus clearly to vest the
land in the tiller. The right of any person to receive
merely rent is taken away for a price. The respondents who
are landlords, have challenged the Amendment Act whereby
Chapter IIA has been inserted in the Act on the ground of
illegal discrimination. The argument is that in absence of
provisions for ceiling the impugned Act bestows undeserved
benefit on the tenants at the cost of the landlords, without
reference to the respective areas in their possession. The
Amendment was enforced as also the impugned judgment was
delivered before the deletion of Clause (f) of Article 19(1)
from the Constitution and one of the grounds which has been
successfully urged before the High Court is based on Article
19(1)(f). So far Article 31A of the Constitution is con-
cerned, the case of the respondents which has found favour
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
with the court below is that the provisions of the impugned
Amendment Act cannot be held to be a step by way of agrarian
reforms and, therefore, cannot have the protection of the
Article. This is the main thrust of the argument of Mr. R.F.
Nariman in this Court also. He has strenuously contended
that for extending the protection of Article 31A(1)(a) to
any particular law it is necessary that the law contains
adequate measure against concentration of wealth in the
hands of a few. It is claimed that fixation of ceiling is
the heart and soul of agrarian reform without which it does
not survive.
6. It has been observed in the impugned judgment that
from the transcripts of newspapers produced by the writ
petitioners and the statements alleged to have been made by
the late Chief Minister that there were very few big land-
holders in Goa, it can be assumed that the landlords in Goa
are small holders of land. Certain statements made in the
affidavit filed before the Court were also referred to in
this connection. An attempt was made in this Court also to
urge that there could not be many big landlords in Goa and
therefore their deprivation of the lands cannot be deemed to
be a step towards fair distribution. It was contended that
in many a case, a cultivating tenant in possession of lands
under different landlords may be having far larger area of
land than his landlords and there cannot be any justifica-
tion in clothing such a tenant with title to the land at the
cost of his comparatively poor landlords. The argument
proceeded, that so far the holdings of the tenants are
concerned. a necessity of placing ceiling on the holdings
cannot be denied in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of
the State stating that further legislation for that purpose
was in contemplation. Mr. R.F. Nariman emphasized the fact
that no such law has been
503
brought in force till now. To the last part of the argument
it was tightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellants that since the Amendment Act was struck down by
the Judicial Commissioner’s Court as ultra vires, further
amendment in the Act by way of introducing provisions for
ceiling had to await this Court’s judgment in the present
civil appeals.
7. Before proceeding with the main argument of Mr. R.F.
Nariman and the cases relied upon by him, it may be useful
to briefly refer to the nature of the right of the landlords
and the tenants under the Act before the insertion of Chap-
ter IIA by the impugned Amendment Act. The rights of a
tenant were heritable and Sections 8 and 9 prohibited the
termination of his tenancy and his eviction except where the
himself surrendered his right to the landlord or where the
landlord established one of the grounds specified in this
regard. By an Amendment in 1966. the tenant was given, by s.
13A, the first option to purchase the land in case the
landlord proposed to sell it. By Chapter III the landlord
was permitted to resume the land, subject to the ceiling of
an area of 2 hectares in case of paddy land and 4 hectares
in other lands, on the ground of bona fide requirement for
personal cultivation; but this right was also dependent on
the fulfilment of certain conditions. This Chapter was to
come into force only on a notification for the purpose which
was never issued. By the impugned Amendment Act this Chapter
was omitted from the Act. In effect the right of resumption
contemplated by the Act never vested in the landlords before
it disappeared from the statute book. It may be stated here
that the 1964 Act is not under attack and the challenge is
confined to its 5th Amendment whereby Chapter IIA has been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
included and Chapter III deleted.
The statement of objects and reasons was placed before
us wherein it has been mentioned that there was a similar
legislation in force in the neighbouring State of Maharash-
tra. The reference obviously is to the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment)Act, 1956, mentioned in para-
graph 2 above, introducing similar amendments in the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948. In Sri Ram Ram
Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959] Supp 1 SCR 489,
the validity of the Act was upheld by a Constitution Bench
of this Court. It has been contended that the Maharashtra A-
mending Act including provisions fixing ceiling which effec-
tively prevented accumulation of large areas of land in
possession of the tenants; and since there is no similar
safeguard in the present 5th Amendment Act, the aforesaid
decision does not come to its rescue
504
and leads to the conclusion that in absence of similar provi-
sions the Act cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the
respondents relied upon the observation of several decisions of
this Court in support of his contention that provisions regarding
ceiling are essential for a statute enacted as a measure of
agrarian reform and in their absence the same cannot claim pro-
tection of Article 31A of the Constitution.
9. Article 31A(1)(a) declares that no law providing for
"the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights
therein or the extinction or modification of any such
rights", shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is
inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the
rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. The 5th Amend-
ment Act has received the assent of the President as re-
quired by the first proviso. The expression ’estate’ is
undisputedly applicable in the present case in view of the
provisions of clause (2) of the said Article. Although
Article 31A(1)(a) does not by express language restrict its
application to a particular nature of law, it is now well
settled that the protection of the Article is limited to the
laws which serve the purpose of agrarian reform, and Mr.
R.F. Nariman is right in relying upon the observations at
page 90IF of the judgment in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. and
Others v. S.B. Kamble and Others, [1975] 3 SCR page 885. The
learned counsel has further urged that the other observa-
tions in this judgment support his main argument also that
in absence of provisions for ceiling a statute cannot be
held to be for agrarian reform. We are unable to agree. In
that case the constitutional validity of the Act amending
certain provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural (Ceiling
and Holdings) Act was under challenge and it was sought to
be saved inter alia with the aid of Article 3 1A. While
discussing the scope of Article 3 1A, the Court at page 902F
relied upon the decision in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and
Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1973] 1 SCR 258, in the
following terms:
"In the case of Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr.
v. State of Tamil Nadu it was held while dealing with the
provisions of Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conver-
sion into Ryotwari) Act that the object and general scheme
of the Act was to abolish intermediaries between the state
and the cultivator and to help the actual cultivator by
giving him the status of direct relationship between himself
and the state. The Act, as such, in its broad outlines was
held to be a measure of agrarian reform and protected by
article 31A."
505
At page 903H it was observed that in a sense agrarian reform
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
is wider than land reform. At page 905 the conclusion was
summarised under 8 heads, and Mr. R.F. Nariman strongly
relied on the last proposition stating,
"(8) A provision fixing ceiling area and providing for the
disposal of surplus land in accordance with the rules is a
measure of agrarian reform."
It cannot be denied that the appropriately enacted statutes
having provisions for fixing ceiling of holdings do fall in
the category of legislation for agrarian reform, but the
proposition relied upon, does not say and cannot be inter-
preted as holding that it is such an essential feature of
agrarian reform without which a law cannot be included in
that category. The observations at page 902F in respect of
the judgment in Balmadies Plantations case, quoted earlier
rather negative such an assumption.
10. The case of Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi (supra) has not
only been distinguished in the impugned judgment but has
been relied upon for supporting the writ petitioner’s argu-
ment. Reliance has been placed on the observations at page
495 of the reported judgment to the effect that the object
of the Maharashtra Act, which was under consideration in
that case. was to bring about such distribution of the
agricultural lands as best to subserve the common good and
this object was sought to be achieved by fixing ceiling on
areas of holdings. It, however, does not follow that fixing
ceiling area of land which can be held by a person is a
basic and essential requirement of land reform. Since the
challenge against the Maharashtra Act was being directed to
the provisions fixing ceiling it became necessary to consid-
er and decide the effect of those provisions pointedly. But
on a careful consideration of the entire judgment, there
does not remain any element of doubt that a proper statute
even without including provisions regarding ceiling may be
entitled to the protection of Article 31A provided it is
otherwise a measure of agrarian reform. As mentioned earli-
er, the Court was deciding the question of constitutional
validity of the 1956 Act which amended the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act enacted in 1948. The original
1948 Act did not contain the provisions of ceiling which
were later introduced by the impugned amendment. If the
stand of the respondents be assumed to be correct, the 1948
Act could not have been in absence of the provisions of
ceiling, held to be a step in agrarian reform. But the Court
at page 492 stated that:
506
"The 1948 Act had been passed by the State Legislature as a
measure of agrarian reform .... "
With respect to the 1956 Amendment Act, it was said at page
493 that,
"With a view to achieve the objective of establish-
ing a socialistic pattern of society in the state within the
meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, a further
measure of agrarian reform was enacted by the State Legisla-
ture, being the impugned Act, hereinbefore referred to,
which was designed to bring about such distribution of the
ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to
subserve the common goods thus eliminating concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment."
(emphasis added)
The use of the expression "further measure’ as mentioned
above and the repetition of the said expression again at
page 495 emphasise the fact that the original Act also was a
measure of agrarian reform. Thus the decision, instead of
helping the respondents lends support to the appellants’
argument.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
11. Mr. R.F. Nariman cited a number of other decisions
dealing with the validity of provisions fixing ceiling and
the Court upheld those provisions on the ground that they
were measures of agrarian reform, but they do not support
the reverse proposition as put forward on behalf of the
respondents. All these decisions are, therefore, clearly
distinguishable and we will mention briefly some of them
which were heavily relied on by Mr. Nariman.
12. In the case of Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must. Mazi-
runnessa, [1962] 1 SCR 724, writ petitions were filed in the
High Court challenging the validity of the Assam Fixation of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1957. The High Court in dis-
missing the petitions held that the impugned Act was pro-
tected by Article 31A as it was a measure of agrarian re-
forms and imposed limits on lands to be held by persons in
order to bring about its equitable distribution. The main
question which was canvassed before this Court was whether
the expression "the rights in relation to an estate" in the
Article could cover the impugned Act, and it was answered in
the affirmative by holding that the said expression is of a
very wide amplitude. At page 729 this Court observed thus:
507
"This Article has been construed by this Court on several
occasions in dealing with legislative measures of agrarian
reforms. The object of such reforms generally is to abolish
the intermediaries between the State and the cultivator and
to help the actual cultivator by giving him the status of
direct relationship between himself and the State."
The 5th Amendment Act impugned in the cases before us satis-
fies this test. Similar was the position in Purushothaman
Nambudiri y. The state of Kerala, [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 753.
The case of Fida Ali and Others v. State of Jammu and Kash-
mir, [1975] 1 SCR 340, was also considering a statute pro-
viding a scheme for agrarian reform which included provi-
sions in respect of ceiling. While upholding the Act the
provisions fixing ceiling were upheld but the other observa-
tions in the judgment clearly indicate that the same cannot
be assumed to be a condition precedent. Personal cultivation
by the holder of land was emphasised as an important aspect
in the following words at page 345G:
"The golden web, throughout the warp and woof of
the Act, is the feature of personal cultivation of the land.
The expression ’personal cultivation’ which runs through
sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is defined with care under section
2(7) in a detailed manner with a proviso and six explana-
tions.
From a review of the foregoing provisions it is
obvious that the Act contains a clear programme of agrarian
reforms intaking stock of the land in the State which is not
in personal cultivation (section 3) and which though in
personal cultivation is in excess of the ceiling area
(section 4)."
In the ultimate paragraph of the judgment it was pointed
that for framing a scheme for agrarian reforms it is not
necessary or feasible to follow a set pattern in different
parts of the country. It was observed,
"On the other hand, the predominant object under-
lying the provisions of the Act is agrarian reforms. Agrar-
ian reforms naturally cannot take the same pattern through-
out the country. Besides the availability of land for the
purpose, limited in scope in the nature of things, the
scheme has to fit in with the local conditions, variability
of climate, rainfall, peculiarity of terrain, suitability
and profitability of multiple crop patterns, vulnerability
of floods and so
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
508
many other factors in formulating a scheme of agrarian
reforms suitable to a particular State".
The decision, therefore, indicates that a flexible approach
has to be adopted in deciding as to the nature of agrarian
reform to be taken, rather than laying down a strait jacket
rule for universal application. The observations in Datta-
traya Govind Mahajan and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Another, [1977] 2 SCR 790, were also made while examining an
Act fixing ceiling of holdings and in justification of the
impugned provisions it was observed that the policy in this
regard was initiated following the report of the Agricultur-
al Labour Inquiry conducted in the 1960s and in implementa-
tion of this policy the Act under consideration was passed.
The implication is that the fixation of ceiling was not
essentially involved in agrarian reform but it had to be
resorted to in the State of Maharashtra following the con-
clusion arrived at in the Agricultural Labour Inquiry.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed
two cases wherein Article 31A was held to be inapplicable.
In K.K. Kochuni and Others v. The State of Madras and Oth-
ers, [1960] 3 SCR 887, the question of Article 31A did arise
but in absolutely different context. The immediate predeces-
sor of the petitioner K.K. Kochini was the sthanee of the
properties attached to the various sthanee held by him. On
his death in 1925, the petitioner being the senior member
became the sthanee and the respondents No. 2 to 17 being the
junior members of the tarwad did not get any interest in the
properties. In an earlier litigation which was commenced
following the passing of an Act in 1932, the petitioners’
exclusive right was established up to the Privy Council
stage. It was held that the Members of the tarwad had no
interest therein. After the title of the sthanee was thus
established, the Madras Legislature passed the impugned Act
in 1955, which declared that every sthanam satisfying cer-
tain conditions mentioned in the Act would be deemed and
would always be deemed to have properties belonging to the
tarwad. The petitioner K.K. Kochuni challenged the Act as
ultra vires before this Court by an application under Arti-
cle 32 of the Constitution. Two other petitions were also
filed, one by his wife and daughters with respect to certain
other properties gifted to them and the other by his son. In
support of the constitutional validity of the Act it was
argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner’s
sthanam was an estate within the meaning of Article 31A and,
therefore, enjoyed the protection under that Article. The
argument was that a law relating inter se the rights "of a
proprietor in his estate and the junior members of his
family was also covered by the wide
509
pharseology used in clause (2)(b) of Article 31A. This Court
rejected the plea, holding that:
"The definition of "estate" refers to an existing law relat-
ing to land tenures in a particular area indicating thereby
that the Article is concerned only with the land tenure
described as an "estate". The inclusive definition of the
rights of such an estate also enumerates the rights vested
in the proprietor and his subordinate tenure-holders. The
last clause in that definition, viz., that those rights also
include the rights or privileges in respect of land revenue,
emphasizes the fact that the Article is concerned with land
tenure. It is, therefore, manifest that the said Article
deals with a tenure called "estate" and provides for its
acquisition or the extinguishment or modification of the
rights of the land-holders or the various subordinate ten-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
ure-holders in respect of their rights in relation to the
estate. The contrary view would enable the State to divest a
proprietor of his estate and vest it in another without
reference to any agrarian reform. It would also enable the
state to compel a proprietor to divide his properties,
though self-acquired, between himself and other members of
his family or create interest therein in favour of persons
other than tenants who had none before."
The Court, thus held that Article 31A (1)(a) will not apply
to an Act which does not contemplate or see to regulate the
fights inter se between the landlords and tenants leaving
all their characteristics intact. The Court further consid-
ered the judgment in Sri Ram Ram Narain’s case (supra) and
distinguished it on the ground that under the Bombay Act
certain fights were conferred on the tenants in respect of
their tenements which they did not have before. The other
case of San jeer Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. and Another, [1983] 1 SCR 1000, relied upon by Mr.
Nariman is also of no help as the same was dealing with
certain legislation in regard to mines and minerals. The
question of interpreting Article 31A (1)(a) did not arise
there at all.
14. As has been discussed above. the title to the land
shall vest in the tiller and the landlord shall get the
compensation. Earlier also his right to resume the land for
personal cultivation was considerably restricted by the
provisions of the 1964 Act. As a result of the impugned
Amendment Act he has been divested of this limited right
510
for a price, and the tiller shall no more be under a threat
of dispossession. The impugned provisions must therefore be
accepted as a measure of land reform. We reject the argument
of the respondents that in absence of provisions fixing
ceiling on the area of land which can be held by a person a
statute cannot be accepted as a measure of land reform. The
5th Amendment Act is, therefore, entitled to the protection
of Article 3 IA and it cannot be struck down on the ground
of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The
judgment of the Judicial Commissioner declaring the Act as
ultra vires is accordingly set aside and the writ petitions
filed by the respondents are dismissed. Consequently it is
not necessary to deal with the writ petition (W.P. No. 864
of 1988) filed in this Court under Article 32 challenging
the inclusion of the impugned Act in the 9th Schedule of the
Constitution and the same is rejected.
15. In the result, Civil Appeals No. 1314-1318 of 1979
are allowed, but, in the circumstances, the parties are
directed to bear their own costs throughout.
R.S.S. Appeals allowed Petition dismissed.
511