MANIBHAI SHIVABHAI v. STATE — 1968 DIGILAW 126 (GUJ)

A. R. BAKSHI, P. N. BHAGWATI, J. ( 1 ) THESE five petitions raise a common question regarding the validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1965 Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 amending secs. 32m and 32p by adding sub-sec. (2) to sec. 32m and sec. 32pp in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act ). The petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 343 and 346 of 1966 were owners of land bearing certain survey numbers in Chikhodra Taluka Anand to which the Tenancy Act applied. The third respondent in each case was the tenant in respect of the said lands prior to 1st April 1957 and the third respondent became a deemed purchaser of the lands by virtue of the provisions contained in sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act on 1st April 1957 which is called the tillers day. The purchase price was fixed and the tenant in each case had to pay in installments and was in arrears of four installments having not paid the same within the time prescribed with the result that the deemed purchase of the land by the tenant had become ineffective. The petitioners thereupon applied to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for surrender of the lands to them. The impugned Act Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 came into force before these applications were disposed of. The case of the petitioners is that the provisions of the newly added sub-clause (2) of sec. 32m whereby the tenant was given a further time to pay up the purchase price were void and that therefore their applications for obtaining the surrender of the land should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sec. 32m and 32p as they stood before the Amendment Act of 1965. The petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 514 515 and 516 of 1968 own lands at Badharpur and the third respondent in each case was a tenant in those lands to which the provisions of the Tenancy Act applied. By virtue of the provisions of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act the third respondent became the deemed purchaser on 1st April 1957. 514 515 and 516 of 1968 own lands at Badharpur and the third respondent in each case was a tenant in those lands to which the provisions of the Tenancy Act applied. By virtue of the provisions of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act the third respondent became the deemed purchaser on 1st April 1957. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal fixed the purchase price in respect of the said lands which was to be paid by installments and the tenant in each case failed to deposit the installments on due dates and was in arrears of four installments. The petitioners therefore filed applications for declaring the deemed purchase ineffective and for disposal of the lands under sec. 32p of the Tenancy Act. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Shankheda declared the purchase in respect of the said lands ineffective. The applications of the petitioners for surrender of the lands under sec. 32p of the Tenancy Act were adjourned as the Amendment Act of 1965 had come into force The case of the petitioners is that the Gujarat Amendment Act of 1965 is illegal and void and that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal should be restrained from issuing a certificate of purchase in favour of the third respondent and that the Tribunal should be directed to dispose of the applications of the petitioners for obtaining the surrender of the lands in accordance with the provisions of secs. 32m and 32p of the Tenancy Act as they stood before the Amendment Act of 1965. 32m and 32p of the Tenancy Act as they stood before the Amendment Act of 1965. ( 2 ) THE Tenancy Act of 1948 was passed by the State Legislature as a measure of agrarian reform on 28th December 1948 and the objectives sought to be achieved were set out in the second paragraph of the preamble which is as under:-AND whereas on account of the neglect of a land holder or disputes between a landholder and his tenants the cultivation of his estate has seriously suffered or for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural it is expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands dwelling houses sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists agricultural labourers and artisans in the province of Bombay and to make provisions for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing. THE Act was thereafter amended by the State Legislature in 1956. Chapter III of the Tenancy Act relates to special rights and privileges of tenants and provisions for distribution of land for personal cultivation. Part I of that Chapter relates to termination of tenancy for personal cultivation and nonagricultural use and sec. 31 in that Part relates to landlords rights to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and nonagricultural purpose. Sec. 31a relates to conditions of the termination of tenancy and the rest of the sections in that Part Secs. 31b 31 and 31d relate to the same subject matter. Part II of that Chapter relates to purchase of land by tenants and it is with the sections contained in that Part that we are primarily concerned here. Secs. 32 to 32r which are contained in Part II of Chapter III and secs. 325 to 32u which are contained in Part II-A of the said Chapter which was subsequently added provide a scheme for the disposal of lands in respect of which a tenant was deemed to have become a purchase for fixation of compensation for payment of the compensation to the landlord and the disposal of the lands by rendering the deemed purchase ineffective under certain circumstances. We will examine the provisions of some of the sections which have a bearing in these petitions in detail a little later. We will examine the provisions of some of the sections which have a bearing in these petitions in detail a little later. But if we summarize the effect of the provisions contained in Part II of Chapter III sec. 32 provides that on the first day of April 1957 every tenant shall under the circumstances mentioned in the section be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord. Under sec. 32g as soon as may be after the 1st April 1957 which was designated as the tillers day the Agricultural Lands Tribunal shall issue notices to all tenants and landlords and other persons interested in the land to appear before it on a specified date. If the tenant was not willing to purchase the land the deemed purchase was to become ineffective; but if however the tenant was willing to purchase the land the Tribunal was to determine the purchase price of such land in accordance with the provisions of sec. 32h and sub-sec. (3) of sec. 63a. Sec. 32k provides for the mode of payment of price by the tenant purchaser and the amount of the purchase price was in the case of tenant who was not a permanent tenant payable either in lump sum within one year or in such annual installments not exceeding twelve with simple interest at the rate of 49 per cent per annum on or before such dates as may be fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is empowered to extend the period for payment of the purchase price when it was payable in lump sum by a period not exceeding one year. The next important section is sec. 32m which provides for the issue of a certificate of purchase if the purchase price was paid by the tenant as prescribed by sec. 32k If the purchase price was however not so paid within the period fixed under sec. 3 or if four installments were in arrears the deemed purchase was to become ineffective and the land was to he at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p to be disposed of as directed in the latter section. This sec. 32p provides for the termination of the tenancy of the tenant and for eviction and for surrender of the land subject to the provisions of sec. 15 of the Tenancy Act. 32p to be disposed of as directed in the latter section. This sec. 32p provides for the termination of the tenancy of the tenant and for eviction and for surrender of the land subject to the provisions of sec. 15 of the Tenancy Act. If the land could not be surrendered it was to be disposed of in the order of priority mentioned in the section. This was the position till the Amendment Act of 1965 was passed by the State Legislature. The Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 called the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1965 received the assent of the President on 29th December 1965. By the said Amendment Act provisions of certain sections were amended deleted or modified but we are mainly concerned here with the additions made by secs. 3 and 5 of the Amendment Act. By sec. 3 of the Amendment Act subsec. (2) was added after sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32m and the effect of the addition was that notwithstanding the default in making payment within the time of the amount of purchase price and although the purchase had become ineffective if the tenant deposited the amount of purchase price together with interest within three years from the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act the purchase of the land shall be deemed not to have become ineffective and the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the tenant under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 2m. By sec. 5 of the Amendment Act sec. 32pp which makes a similar provision and which was discussed with sec. 32 (M) (2) as being invalid was added to sec. 32p of the Tenancy Act. A further opportunity to the tenant to purchase the land was given in cases where any land had been at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p on account of the purchase of the land by the tenant having become ineffective under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 32g by reason of the tenant failing to appear before the Tribunal or making a statement expressing his unwillingness to purchase the land and the land at the disposal of the Collector had not been disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p. This Amendment Act Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 has been challenged by the petitioners in these petitions. (2) of sec. 32p. This Amendment Act Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 has been challenged by the petitioners in these petitions. ( 3 ) THE main grounds on which the Amendment Act has been challenged before us by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners were:- (1) That the Amendment Act takes away the vested right of the petitioners to acquire and obtain possession of the lands and therefore violates Article 31 of the Constitution of India; (2) That the provisions of the Amendment Act contravene Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) as the provisions of the Amendment Act impose restriction upon the right of the petitioners to acquire hold and dispose of their property and upon the right to carry on any occupation trade or business; (3) That the said restrictions are unreasonable and not in the interest of the general public; and (4) That the Amendment Act offends against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. THESE contentions were based essentially on the argument that Article 31a of the Constitution did not apply and protect the impugned legislation because:- (I) on the tenant becoming a deemed purchaser the only relationship that existed between the landlord and the tenant was that of a debtor and a creditor and not of a landlord and a tenant and that there was no extinguishment or modification of any right in an estate; and (ii) the amendment did not relate to or advance any agrarian reform. ( 4 ) WE have already referred to the general nature of the scheme which is provided in Part II of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act relating to the purchase of land by tenants. We may now refer to the specific provisions of some of the important sections contained in that Part. Sec. 32 relates to the concept of deemed purchase by tenants in the circumstances mentioned in that section. (SECTION not reproduced here) another important section is sec. 32g which requires the Tribunal to issue notices and determine the price of lands to be payable by tenants. Sec. 32 relates to the concept of deemed purchase by tenants in the circumstances mentioned in that section. (SECTION not reproduced here) another important section is sec. 32g which requires the Tribunal to issue notices and determine the price of lands to be payable by tenants. (Section not reproduced here)IT is noticeable that the section requires the Tribunal to record the statement of the tenant whether he is or is not willing to purchase the land held by him as a tenant and where a tenant fails to appear or makes a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land the Tribunal is required to declare in writing that such tenant was not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase had become ineffective. Thus although by virtue of sec. 32 on the tillers day the tenant was deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord if he failed to appear or made a statement that he was not willing to purchase the land on the declaration of the Tribunal the deemed purchase became ineffective. If however the tenant was willing to purchase the land the Tribunal was to be reckoned according to the provisions of sec. 32h which is as under:- (Section not reproduced here)ON the determination of the purchase price payable under the provisions of sec. 32h referred to above the tenant was required to pay the purchase price according to the mode of payment prescribed by sec. 32k which also may be quoted :- (Section not reproduced here)ON the deposit of the purchase price either in a lump sum or of the last installment of such price as required by sec. 32k a certificate of purchase would be issued by the Tribunal to the tenant but provision had to be made for failure of the tenant to pay the purchase price and it was provided that if the tenant failed to pay the lump sum within the period fixed under clause (ii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32k or was in arrears at any time of four installments the purchase shall be ineffective and the land shall be at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p and any amount deposited by such tenant towards the price of the land shall be refunded to him. This is provided for in sec. 32m which was as under before the Amendment Act of 1965. 32p and any amount deposited by such tenant towards the price of the land shall be refunded to him. This is provided for in sec. 32m which was as under before the Amendment Act of 1965. 32 (1) On the deposit of the price in lump sum or of the last installment of such price the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase in the prescribed from to the tenant in respect of the land. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of purchase. If a tenant fails to pay the lump sum within the period fixed under clause (ii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32k or is at any time in arrears of four installments the purchase shall be at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p and any amount deposited by such tenant towards the price of the land shall be refunded to him. IT will be seen that when the circumstances mentioned in sec. 32m prevailed and if the tenant failed to pay the price as stated therein the purchase by the tenant was to be considered as ineffective and any amount towards the purchase price which was deposited by the tenant was to be refunded and it was provided by sec. 32m that where any purchase of land had become ineffective the landlord would be entitled to recover from the tenant the rent of the land as if the land had not been purchased. By virtue of sec. 3 of the Amendment Act sub-sec. (2) was inserted in sec. 32m. That sub-sec. (2) reads as under:- (2 ). In the case of the purchase of any land by a tenant which before the date of the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1965 has become ineffective by reason of the failure of the tenant to pay the lump sum within the period fixed under clause (ii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32k or the tenant remaining in arrears of four installments if the tenant deposits with the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of such commencement the entire amount of the price of the land as fixed under sec. 33k or as the case may be such portion of the price so fixed as may have remained unpaid together with the interest if any payable under sec. 33k or as the case may be such portion of the price so fixed as may have remained unpaid together with the interest if any payable under sec. 32k the purchase of the land shall be deemed not to have become so ineffective and the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the tenant under sub-sec. (1 ). IT would be seen that if the conditions mentioned in the sub-section prevailed and in case the purchase of the land by the tenant had become ineffective on account of nonpayment as mentioned therein and if the tenant deposited with the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act the entire amount of the price of the land together with interest the purchase of the land shall be deemed not to have become ineffective and the Tribunal in such an event shall issue a certificate of purchase to the tenant under sub-sec. (1 ). The effect of sub-sec. (2) thus is that the purchase which had once become ineffective was to be deemed as not to have become so ineffective that is to say on the purchase becoming ineffective the old relationship of landlord and tenant which had become reestablished again got extinguished and the tenant became the purchaser of the land. Sec. 32p provides for the power of the Collector to dispose of the land in the manner provided for in the section where the purchase of any land by a tenant under sec. 32 had become ineffective. BY sec. 5 of the Amendment Act sec 32pp was inserted after sec. 32 and the newly added sec. 32pp reads as under:-32 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in secs. 32g and 32p where before the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to in this section as the said date) (I) any land has been at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p on account of the purchase of the land by the tenant thereof having become ineffective under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 32g by reason of the tenant failing to appear before the Tribunal or making a statement expressing his unwillingness to purchase the land and (II) the land so at the disposal of the Collector has not been disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2) of sec. (3) of sec. 32g by reason of the tenant failing to appear before the Tribunal or making a statement expressing his unwillingness to purchase the land and (II) the land so at the disposal of the Collector has not been disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p the tenant if he is willing to purchase the land may make an application in writing to the Tribunal within a period of one year from the said date for a declaration that the purchase had not become ineffective. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-sec. (1) the Tribunal shall issue a notice to the tenant and the landlord calling upon them to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. (3) If the tenant appears and makes a statement that he is willing to purchase the land the land shall cease to be at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p and the Tribunal shall determine the purchase price of the land in the manner provided in sec. 32g as if the purchase had not been ineffective. (4) The provisions of secs. 32 to 32p and secs. 32q and 32r shall so far as may be applicable apply to the purchase of the land by a tenant under this section (5) In the case of land to which this section applies no action shall be taken under sec. 32p unless the tenant entitled to make an application under this section fails to make such application within the period specified in sub-sec. (1 ). IT will be seen that the newly added section gives a further opportunity to the tenant to purchase land. It relates to any land which has been at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p on account of the purchase of the land by the tenant having become ineffective under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 32g by reason of the tenant failing to appear before the Tribunal or making a statement expressing his unwillingness to purchase the land and the land so at the disposal of the Collector has not been disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p. (3) of sec. 32g by reason of the tenant failing to appear before the Tribunal or making a statement expressing his unwillingness to purchase the land and the land so at the disposal of the Collector has not been disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p. If the tenant in such a case is willing to purchase the land he may make an application to the Tribunal within a period of one year for a declaration that the purchase has not become ineffective and if after issuance of a notice to the tenant and the landlord if the tenant appears and makes a statement that he was willing to purchase the land the land shall cease to be at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p and the Tribunal shall determine the purchase price of the land in the manner provided in sec. 32g as if the purchase had not been ineffective. Thus the newly added sec. 32pp like sec. 32 (M) (2) gives a further opportunity to the tenant to purchase the land in the circumstances mentioned in the section. In this case also the deemed purchase by the tenant had become ineffective and the relationship of landlord and tenant that once existed had become reestablished on the purchase being ineffective; but again a further opportunity was given to the tenant and on the tenant satisfying the conditions laid down in sec. 32pp the rights of the landlord would be extinguished as the ineffectiveness of the purchase would cease to exist and the proceedings for the determination of the price of the land would start in the manner provided in sec. 32g as if the purchase had not been ineffective. ( 5 ) THE result of the introduction of secs. 32 to 32r was that the tiller of the land became the owner of the soil which he was cultivating as he was to be deemed the purchaser of the land on the tillers day. He was thus brought into direct contact with the State eliminating the intermediary landlord. The title of the landlord to the land passed to the tenant on the tillers day as by virtue of the statutory provision there was a purchase of the land as between the landlord and the tenant. He was thus brought into direct contact with the State eliminating the intermediary landlord. The title of the landlord to the land passed to the tenant on the tillers day as by virtue of the statutory provision there was a purchase of the land as between the landlord and the tenant. The title thus vested in the tenant by virtue of the aforesaid provisions and was defeasible only in the event of the tenant failing to appear or to make a statement that he was not willing to purchase the land or on his committing default in payment of the price as determined by the Tribunal. In such an event the purchase which had come into existence by virtue of the provisions of the statute would become ineffective with the result that he position of the relationship that obtained before the deemed purchase would be restored and reestablished of course with this restriction on the landlords right that the land would be at the disposal of the Collector as provided in sec. 32p of the Tenancy Act. On the insertion of subsec. (2) to sec. 32m and of sec. 32pp a further opportunity was given to the tenant in the cases covered by those sections and it is noticeable that when such an opportunity was given the deemed purchase had already become ineffective and the relationship of landlord and tenant had become reestablished. On the tenant complying with the provisions of the newly added sections the ineffectiveness which had reestablished the relationship of landlord and tenant became wiped out by virtue of the provision of law and the rights of the landlord which had so come into existence were affected as the tenant had become a purchaser on his complying with the provisions of the newly added section within the time prescribed therein. The rights of the landlord were affected at the time when the tenant became the purchaser by virtue of the newly added sections and the rights of the landlord became affected in the same manner as they were when the tenant had first become a purchaser by virtue of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act. Such rights as they existed became extinguished and therefore if the other requirements of the provisions of Article 31a of the Constitution were satisfied that Article would be applicable to that impugned provisions of the Amendment Act of 1965. 32 of the Tenancy Act. Such rights as they existed became extinguished and therefore if the other requirements of the provisions of Article 31a of the Constitution were satisfied that Article would be applicable to that impugned provisions of the Amendment Act of 1965. ( 6 ) IT was however urged on behalf of the petitioners that as from 1 April 1957 the tenant became the owner of the land and that therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end and only the relationship of debtor and creditor existed between the tenant and the landlord and it was this relationship that was sought to be affected by the impugned provisions. It was urged that on the purchase being ineffective the land would vest in the State and not in the landlord and there would be no rights left in the landlord and that the impugned provisions merely gave time for payment and that therefore they would not be protected by Article 31a of the Constitution. It was urged that giving of time for payment was not a right in estate within the meaning of Article 31a and that all that was sought to be achieved by the newly introduced provisions was the repayment of delayed money. Reliance was placed on certain observations in Jayvantsinghji v. State of Gujarat A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 821. These observations were made in respect of the Bombay Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act 1958. The case of the petitioners in that case was that as a result of the provisions of the Bombay Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act 1958 certain non-permanent tenants were deemed to be permanent tenants as from the commencement of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 and thereby become entitled to acquire on payment of six times the assessment or six times the rent instead of at least the minimum of 20 times the assessment the rights of an occupant within the meaning of sec. 5a of the Taluqdari Abolition Act 1949 This result according to the petitioners substantially deprived them of the rights which they had acquired on tillers day by reason of the provisions contained in sec. 5a of the Taluqdari Abolition Act 1949 This result according to the petitioners substantially deprived them of the rights which they had acquired on tillers day by reason of the provisions contained in sec. 32 and other relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 On the tillers day the petitioners had ceased to be tenure holders of the lands held by non-permanent tenants and the petitioners were left only with the right to get the purchase price under sec. 32h of the Tenancy Act. The rights of the petitioners to the purchase price under sec. 32h from the tenants who were non-permanent was held to be a right of property and the provisions of the impugned Act of 1958 in so far as they laid down that in certain circumstances a tenant shall be deemed to be a permanent tenant from the date of the Taluqdari Abolition Act 1949 adversely affected the right of the petitioners with retrospective effect and it practically wiped off a large part of the purchase price which the petitioners were entitled to get. It was in these circumstances that certain sections of the Act of 1958 in so far as they deemed some tenants as permanent tenants were declared to be unconstitutional. On 1st April 1957 the tenure holders had ceased to be tenure holders in respect of lands held by non-permanent tenants and therefore it was observed that the relations between the tenure holders and the tenants had changed from landlord and tenant to that of creditor and debtor and that in those circumstances the impugned Act did not provide for acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein nor did it provide for the extinguishment or modification of any such rights and that therefore Article 31a had no application and could not save the impugned Act. ( 7 ) THE circumstances that obtain the case before us are however different. Here by virtue of a statutory provision the tenant had become the purchaser. But his status as a purchaser had become ineffective by virtue of the provisions in the same statute. The deemed purchase or sale which had come into existence on a particular day by virtue of a fiction created by the statute had ceased to exist and had become ineffective. But his status as a purchaser had become ineffective by virtue of the provisions in the same statute. The deemed purchase or sale which had come into existence on a particular day by virtue of a fiction created by the statute had ceased to exist and had become ineffective. The purchase had therefore no legal effect with the result that the status quo ante was restored and the relationship that once existed was re. established subject to the provisions of the Act. The right that was vested in the tenant as a purchaser was by the very statute which created it subject to defeasance and on the default made by him his title would no longer remain but would cease to exist with the result that the title would revert in the landlord subject to the provisions of the Act that is the land being subject to disposal by the Collector. Such a restriction would not mean that the land would vest in the State as was urged on behalf of the petitioners. On a purchase being ineffective the natural result would be that the title would revert to the original landlord and that status quo ante would be restored as if the purchase had never taken place. There is no section which provides that on the purchase being ineffective the land shall vest in the State. Clause (1) of sec. 32m provides that on the purchase being ineffective the land shall be at the disposal of the Collector under sec. 32p and any amount deposited by the tenant towards the price of the land shall be refunded to him. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p provides for a direction to be made by the Collector on the purchase of land under sec. 32 becoming ineffective that the tenancy in respect of the land shall be terminated and the tenant be summarily evicted that the land shall subject to the provisions of sec. 15 be surrendered to the landlord and that if the entire land or any portion thereof cannot be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of sec. 15 the land shall be disposed of by sale to a person in the priority mentioned in the section. 15 be surrendered to the landlord and that if the entire land or any portion thereof cannot be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of sec. 15 the land shall be disposed of by sale to a person in the priority mentioned in the section. If on the purchase becoming ineffective the relationship of landlord and tenant was not contemplated to be revived there was no necessity for providing that the land in such an event should be surrendered to the landlord and that the tenancy in respect of the land should be terminated. Sec. 32n further provides that where any purchase of land has become ineffective the landlord shall be entitled to recover from the tenant the rent of the land as if the land had not been purchased. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that here in sec. 32n the words landlord tenant and rent were used in a descriptive sense only and did not mean to suggest that the relationship of landlord and tenant was reestablished. The word rent has been defined in sec. 2 (16) to mean:-ANY consideration in money or kind or both paid or payable by a tenant on account of the use or occupation of the land held by him but shall not include the rendering of any personal service or labour. AND there is nothing in the section to indicate that the word rent has been used in any different sense to mean only compensation payable to a person who was once a landlord. If we read secs. 32n and 32p together it is clear that what the provisions of the Act sought to achieve was that on certain default being made by the tenant who was to be deemed a purchaser the purchase was to become totally ineffective as if it did not exist. On the revival of the relationship of landlord and tenant however a restriction was placed on the right of the landlord by sec. 32p of the Tenancy Act giving a power to the Collector to dispose of the land according to the provisions contained in the section. That was no doubt a restriction on the right of the landlord as the owner of the lands. 32p of the Tenancy Act giving a power to the Collector to dispose of the land according to the provisions contained in the section. That was no doubt a restriction on the right of the landlord as the owner of the lands. But on account of that it could not be said that the title of the land had become vested in the State and that the State had become the owner of the lands on the deemed purchase having become ineffective. As already stated there is no statutory provision whereby the land in respect of which the deemed purchase had become effective would vest in the State. The indication on the other hand is to the contrary in sub-sec. (4) of sec. 32p which is as under:-32 (4) Where any land or portion thereof cannot be surrendered in favour of the landlord and where such land or portion is offered for sale under sub-sec. (2) but no person comes forward to purchase such land or portion as the case may be shall vest in the State Government and the Collector shall determine the price of such land or portion in accordance with the provisions of sec. 63a and the amount of the price so determined shall subject to the provisions of sec. 32q be paid to the owner thereof. IT is only in the circumstances mentioned in sub-sec. (4) that has been provided that the land shall vest in the State Government. Nor can the argument based on sec. 64 of the Tenancy Act be of any assistance to the petitioners. No analogy can be drawn from the provisions of sec. 64 which relates to a private sale of agricultural lands and the provisions contained in sec. 64 cannot be utilised for the purpose of construing the sections and judging the effect of the sections which are based on the concept of or provide for purchase by virtue of a statutory provision. Reference was made to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 32 and it was urged that the words tenant and rent were used in this sub-section although it related to land deemed to have been purchased by the tenant. Reference was made to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 32 and it was urged that the words tenant and rent were used in this sub-section although it related to land deemed to have been purchased by the tenant. But this sub-section has to be read in the context of the whole section and it appears that a specific provision had to be made for the payment of amount in a case wherein the land was deemed to have been purchased by a tenant and this amount had to be given credit of in calculation of the amount of price whereas sec. 32n and sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p refer specifically to cases where the purchase of the land by a tenant has become ineffective and it is thereafter that provision has been made for the payment of rent to the landlord and for the surrender of land as provided in sub-sec. (2) (b) of sec. 32p. There is a clear distinction between a purchase which is and continues to be effective and a purchase which has been rendered ineffective on account of default on the part of the tenant. When the purchase has become ineffective it would mean that it is to be ignored for all purposes as if it is non-existent and such a purchase would neither bind the landlord nor the tenant. The only result of such a position would be the restoration of the position that is to say the existence of that condition as if the purchase had not come into existence at all and there is no scope for the argument that in such an event the land would vest in the State or that the relationship of a debtor and creditor would continue to exist although the purchase had been rendered ineffective by a statutory provision. The result therefore would be that on sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32m and sec. 32pp coming into operation the rights of the landlord which were restored in him on the deemed purchase by the tenant being ineffective would vest in the tenant who on account of the new provisions would become a purchaser of the land on his complying with the provisions of the new sections and therefore the rights of the landlord in the land would clearly be extinguished. These rights pertaining to agricultural lands which were the subject matter of the deemed purchase according to sec. These rights pertaining to agricultural lands which were the subject matter of the deemed purchase according to sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act. These rights are rights ill an estate. These rights are the same as and similar to those which existed at the time when the tenant first became the purchaser on the tillers day. The argument of the learned advocates of the petitioners was that giving of time to a tenant in making payment of delayed money was not a right in estate and was therefore not saved by Article 31a. But as we have already seen this is not a case in which merely time was given to enable a tenant to pay up the installments although the purchase had remained effective and the title had not vested in the landlord. This is a case in which the right of the landlord in the estate is sought to be affected and by permitting the tenant to pay the amount of money or the installments it would divest the land owner of his right which would on such payment vest in the tenant as a purchaser. The above argument of the learned advocates made on behalf of the petitioners therefore cannot be accepted since in the present case the amendment provides for extinguishment of an interest in land. ( 8 ) NOR could it be said as was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment does not relate to or advance any agrarian reform. We have already seen that the amendment affects rights in land in the same manner as sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act sought to affect such rights by the extinguishment of the right in land of the land owner and by vesting it in the tenant as a purchaser. The scheme of the Act which we have examined is first to give to the original tiller that is the tenant the land which he personally cultivates and if he does not want it to give it to someone else who tills it himself. In this scheme the landlord if he wishes to cultivate personally is also included. The object of the Legislature is to eliminate the intermediary and to make one who tills the land the owner. In this scheme the landlord if he wishes to cultivate personally is also included. The object of the Legislature is to eliminate the intermediary and to make one who tills the land the owner. If we look to the real substance and the cumulative effect of the sections there is no doubt that the scheme is designed as the second paragraph of the preamble already quoted discloses to provide for a measure of agrarian reform and to bring about such distribution of the ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to sub serve the common good. In the case of Sri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 459 it has been observed at page 463 that:-AS to the legislative competence of the State Legislature to pass the impugned Act the question lies within a very narrow compass. As already stated the impugned Act was a further measure of agrarian reform enacted with a view to further amend the 1948 Act and the object of the enactment was to bring about such distribution of the ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to sub serve the common good. THIS object was sought to be achieved by fixing ceiling areas of lands which could be held by a person and by prescribing what was an economic holding. It 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 the Act transferred by way of compulsory purchase all the other lands to tenants in possession of the same with effect from April 1 1957 which was called the tillers day. Provision was also made for disposal of balance of lands after purchase by tenants and the basic idea underlying the provisions of the impugned Act was to prevent the concentration of agricultural lands in the hands of landholders to the common detriment. The tiller or the cultivator was brought into direct contract with the State eliminating thereby the landholders who were in the position of intermediaries. The tiller or the cultivator was brought into direct contract with the State eliminating thereby the landholders who were in the position of intermediaries. The enactment thus affected the relationship between landlord and tenant provided for the transfer and alienation of agricultural lands aimed at land improvement and was broadly stated a legislation in regard to the rights in or over land The object in the introduction of these sections in Chapter III was that the tiller became the owner of the soil and was thus brought into direct contact with the State eliminating the landlord who was in the position of an intermediary. The amendments made by the insertion of secs. 31m (2) and 32pp stand on the same footing as the effect of the introduction of those provisions also is that the tiller who tills his land shall become the owner of the soil and will be placed in direct contact with the State eliminating the intermediary. On the tenant complying with the provisions of the amended sections the land passes to the tenant as the purchaser. These amendments therefore are relatable to the same purpose and objective and it could not be said that the provisions of the newly added secs. 31m (2) and 32pp were invalid as contravening Articles 31 19 and (g) and 14 of the Constitution of India as these provisions are for the reasons already stated protected by Article 31a of the Constitution of India and would not be open to challenge by the petitioners as being ultra vires those Articles. It was because according to the petitioners the newly added secs. 31m (2) and 32pppwere invalid that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendments Act 1965 Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 was as a whole invalid and since the contention of the petitioners that these sections are invalid cannot be upheld and since these sections are saved by the provisions contained in Article 31a of the Constitution of India the relief asked for by the petitioners for a declaration that Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965 was invalid cannot be granted. ( 9 ) IN the result all the petitions fail and the Rule granted in each of the petitions will stand discharged with costs. .