CHHAGANLAL HARILAL BHOJAK v. STATE — 1965 DIGILAW 55 (GUJ)

P. N. BHAGWATI, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of eight petitions raises the issue as to the constitutional validity of sec. 17 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1960 which was passed by the Gujarat Legislature in order to further amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act ). The principal Act was passed by the State Legislature as a measure of agrarian reform on 28th December 1948 with a view to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands and the objectives sought to be achieved were inter alia the improvement of the economic and social conditions of peasants and ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purposes. Certain minor amendments were thereafter made in the principal Act from time to time but they are not material for the purpose of the present petitions and we need not therefore pause to refer to them. The State Legislature then enacted a further measure of agrarian reform in the shape of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1956) amending various provisions of the principal Act and also adding some new provisions to that Act. The Amendment Act of 1956 was reserved for the assent of the President and on such assent being received it was brought into force throughout the State from 1st August 1956 The Amendment Act of 1956 was enacted with a view to achieve the objective or establishing a socialistic pattern of society in the State as contemplated in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution and was designed to bring about such distribution of the ownership and control of agricultural lands as would best subserve the common good and eliminate concentration of wealth and means of production in a few hands. This object was sought to be achieved by the Amendment Act of 1956 by amending certain provisions of the principal Act fixing ceiling areas of lands which could be held by a person and prescribing what was an economic holding. Secs. This object was sought to be achieved by the Amendment Act of 1956 by amending certain provisions of the principal Act fixing ceiling areas of lands which could be held by a person and prescribing what was an economic holding. Secs. 32 to 32r introduced in the principal Act by the Amendment Act of 1956 sought to equitably distribute the lands between the landholders and the tenants and except in those cases where the landholder wanted the land for cultivating the same personally for which due provision was made in sec. 31 of the Act these sections transferred by way of compulsory purchase all the other lands to tenants in possession of the same with effect from 1st April 1957 which was called the tillers day and due provision was also made in these sections for disposal of balance of lands after purchase by tenants. The result of the introduction of these sections was that the tiller or the cultivator became the owner of the soil and was thus brought into direct contact with the State eliminating the landholders who were in the position of intermediaries. These sections were however not made applicable to all agricultural lands. Sec. 43-C which was also introduced at the same time in the principal Act by the Amendment Act of 1956 declared omitting words not material that-"43c. Nothing in sees. 3) to 32r (both inclusive) and 43 shall apply to lands in the areas within the limits of -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) a municipal borough constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (d) a municipal district constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 2 ) THE effect of this exclusion made by sec. 43c was that tenants of lands situate in areas constituting municipal districts and municipal boroughs which for the sake of convenience may be briefly referred to as urban lands did not become the owners of the lands cultivated by them on the tillers clay namely 1 April 1957. The validity of the Amendment Act of 1956 was challenged by certain landholders in the Supreme Court by way of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution on several grounds which included amongst others grounds alleging lack of legislative competence on the part of the State Legislature to enact the Amendment Act of 1956 and violation of Articles 14 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court by a judgment reported in Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay A. I. R. 1959 Supreme Court 459 upheld the validity of the Amendment Act of 1956 holding that the legislation was covered by Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and was therefore within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and so far as the attack based on the violation of Articles 14 19 and 31 was concerned it could not be sustained having regard to the fact that the legislation was covered by Article 31a and was accordingly protected from attack against its constitutionality on the score of its having violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 19 and 31 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THE State of Bombay was thereafter bifurcated into the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat and by virtue of the Bombay Reorganization Act 1960 the principal Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1956 continued in force within the territories constituting the State of Gujarat. ( 3 ) THE State of Bombay was thereafter bifurcated into the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat and by virtue of the Bombay Reorganization Act 1960 the principal Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1956 continued in force within the territories constituting the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat Legislature then passed the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) further amending the provisions of the principal Act. By sec. 17 of the impugned Act clauses (c) and (d) were deleted from sec. 43-C with the result that the provisions of sec. 32 to 32r and 43 became applicable to areas within the municipal districts and municipal boroughsand sec. 7 of the impugned Act introduced sub-secs. (4) (5) and (6) in sec. 32 with a view to making the tenants of agricultural lands situate in those areas deemed purchasers of the lands cultivated by them. Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 32 subject to a proviso which is not material for the purpose of the present discussion provided as follows:-" (4 ). On the date of the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1960 every tenant in the areas within the limits of municipal boroughs within the meaning of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 or within the limits of municipal districts constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 shall subject to the other provisions of this Act. be deemed to have purchased from a landlord free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said date the land held by him as tenant as if the said date were the tillers day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 4 ) THE effect of the enactment of the impugned Act thus was that even the urban lands were brought within the scope of the legislative provision effecting transfer by way of compulsory purchase of lands in the possession of tenants and making them owners of the lands. ( 5 ) 3. Several landholders thereupon preferred the present petition challenging the validity of sec. 17 of the impugned Act deleting clauses (c) and (d) from sec. 43c. Petition No. 176 of 1962 is by a petitioner holding land in the municipal district of Prantij :- Petitions Nos. 233 of 1962 413 of 1962 and 462 of 1962 are by petitioners having lands in the municipal district of Kalol :- Petition No. 376 of 1962 is by a petitioner holding lands in the municipal district of Mehsana :- Petition No. 489 of 1962 is by a petitioner holding lands in the municipal district of Mehmedabad :- Petition No. 1028 of 1962 is by a petitioner holding lands in the municipal district of Kapadvanj and Petition No. 560 of 1962 is by a petitioner holding lands in the municipal borough of Godhra. All these petitions follow a common pattern and the main grounds of attack are (1) that sec. 17 of the impugned Act is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature; (2) that it infringes Article 14; and (3) that it is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (f) and 31. ( 6 ) 4. So far as the first ground of attack is concerned there is no substance in it. It is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain V. State of Bombay (supra) to which we have just referred. The effect of sec. 17 of the impugned Act is to make the provisions of secs. 32 to 32r and 43 applicable to agricultural lands situate within municipal boroughs and municipal districts and if secs. The effect of sec. 17 of the impugned Act is to make the provisions of secs. 32 to 32r and 43 applicable to agricultural lands situate within municipal boroughs and municipal districts and if secs. 32 to 32r and 43 are within the legislative competence of the State Legislature as held by the Supreme Court in the case above cited it is difficult to see how sec. 17 of the impugned Act can be regarded as beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The other two grounds of attack are equally unsustainable since the impugned Act has been included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution and no provision of the impugned Act can therefore by reason of Article 31b be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provisions of Part III which include the fundamental rights specified in Articles 14 19 and 31. ( 7 ) 5. We must therefore uphold the constitutional validity of sec. 17 of the impugned Act and in the result the petitions fail and the rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs of the petitions. Petitions dismissed. .