The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1958, extending to Vidarbha and Kutch. The Court held that lands held from the State with payment of revenue qualified as local equivalents of 'estate' under Article 31A(2)(a), validating the Act.
Writ petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
733
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
••
SHRI MAHADEO P AIKAJI KOLHE
YAVATMAL
r96r
April 4.
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Agricultural Land--Amendment of law relating to tenanciesConstitutional validity of enactment-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, r958 (Bom. 99 of r958).
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, which extended the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956, to Vidarbha and Kutch. That Act was declared valid by this Court in Sri Ram R'!1m Narain Medhi v. The Stale of Bombay, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 489, and one of the reasons for doing so was that the lands covered by that Act fell within the definition of the word 'estate' contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The lands in question in the present petitions were situated in .:\rnraoti and Ycotmal and the existing law relating to land tenures.in force in tho! area was the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954· This Code did not employ the word 'estate' and it was contended by the petitioners that the im- pugned Act was not within the protection of Art. 31A of the Constitution.
IIeld, that the contention must fail.
J
Although the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954. did not employ the word 'estate', the relevant clelmition contained in ss. 2(17) and 2(18) of impugned Act and ss. 2(7), 2(20) of the Code read with ss. 145 and 146 thereof leaves no manner ol doubt that the lands in the possession of the petitioners were tenures and in substance an estate.
Since the petitioners held the lands under the State and paid land revenue for then1, the lands fell within the class of local equivalents of the word 'estate' as contemplated by Art. 3rA(2)(a) of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: ·writ Petitions Nos. 93 and 125 of 1959.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
V. M. Lim.aye, E. Udayarathnam and S.S. Shukla, fo1 the petitioners.
I l
| 1961 ShriM ahadeo PaikajiK olhe Yavatmal |
734 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1962] H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, _R. Ganapathy Iyer_and_D.Gupta,_fortherespondent. _W.S. Barlingay_and_A.G.Ratnaparkhi,_for the Interveners. |
|---|---|
| v. TheStateof Bombay |
1961. April4. TheJudgmentofthe Court was deliveredby |
| GajendragadkarJ. | GAJENDRAGADKAR,J.-Thesetwo writ petitions have been filed under Art.32ofthe Constitutionand they seektochallenge the validityofthe Bombay TenancyandAgricultural Lands Act99of1958(here- aftercalled the Act). The impugned Act in substance is intended to extend to Vidarbha region and Cutch area whichhadthenbecome apartofthe Greater Bi- Lingual StateofBombay the provisionsofthe Bom- bayTenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (ActXIIIof1956). The preambletothe impugned Act showsthatitwas intended toamend thelaw relatingtotenanciesofagricultural landsand sites used for allied purposes inthetwo areasofthe StateofBombayandto make certain other provisions in regard to those lands.Inextending the provisions ofthe earlier Bombay ActXIIIof1956 tothetwo areas the legislature has conformedtothepatternset upby the said earlier Act. Thepolicy underlying theActandtheobject intended tobeachievedbyit arethesameandthemethod adopted in achieving thatobject is alsothesame. The validityofthe earlier Bombay Act(XIIIof1956) was challenged before this Court in_SriRamRam Narain Medhi v._ The StateofBombay(1)butthechallenge failedand theAct was held to be constitutional. Oneofthe points which arose for decision inthatcase was whe- thertheimpugned Act was protected by Art. 31A(2)(a) ofthe Constitution,andtheanswer tothatques- tion depended uponthedeterminationofanother issue which was whetherthelands to which the said Act applied werean"estate"as required by Art. 31A(2)(a). Indealing withthatquestion this Court heldthatthe word"estate"as defined bys.2(5)oftheBombay LandRevenue Code, 1879, clearly applied tothelands (x)(1959]Supp.IS.C.R.489. |
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 735
i ..
..
•
covered by the Act and so Art. 31A(2)(a) was applic- r96I able. Having regard to this decision the only point Shri Mahadeo which Mr. Limaye attempted to raise before us in Paikaji Iiolhe support of the two writ pet,itions is that the lands Yavatmal belonging to the two petitioners are not an "estate" v. within the meaning of Art. 31A(2)(a), and so the im- The State of pugned Act is outside the protection of Art. 31A. If Bombay this contention is not upheld then it is obvious that G . d-dk 1 the writ petitions must fail; if the said contention is a;en raga ar · upheld then of course the other contentions raised by the two writ petitions against the validity of certain specific provisions of the Act may fall to be considered.
The two petitioners are Namdeorao Baliramji and Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe respectively. The first one resides at Amraoti and the second at Y eotmal. The first owns about 80 acres dry lands situated in Amraoti out of which 43 acres are under his personal cultivation and the rest in the possession of the tenants. The second petitioner owns about 1168 acres dry lands situated in Yeotrnal out of which 400 acres are under his personal cultivation and the rest with the tenants. The lands in both the cases are charged to the payment of land revenue. The case for both the petitioners is that the lands thus held by them are not an "estate" within the meaning of Art. 31A(2)(a).
Article 31A(2)(a) provides, inter alia, that the expression "estate" shall in relation to any local area have the same meaning as that e4pression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area. The existing local law, it is cornrnon ground, is the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955), and so it is necessary to find whether the lands belonging to the petitioners can be said to be an 'estate' within the meaning of the said Code. Before we do so, however, it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant definitions in the impugned Act. Section 2(17) of the Act defines land as meaning, inter alia, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and includes the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to such land. Section 2(18) defines a land-holder as meaning a
73& SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962]
... '
'96 ' tenure-holder whom the State Government has dec- Shi Mahadeo lared on account of the extent and value of the land I'aikaji /(o/he or his interests therein to be a land-holder for the Yavatmal purposes of this Act. Now, s. 2(7) of the Madhya v. Pradesh Land Revenue Code in question defines a The State 0 1 holding as meaning, inter alia, a parcel of land scpa- Hotnbay _ rately assessed to land revenue, ands. 2(20) defines a Gajendragadlm ;. tenure-holder as meaning a person holding from the State Government as a Bhumiswami or a Bhumidari. Chapter XII of the Code deals with tenure-holders. Section 145 provides that there shall be two classes of tenure-holders of lands held from the State, namely, Bhumiswami and Bhumidari. Section 146 deals with Bhumiswami. It provides that "every person who at the coming into force of this Code belongs to any of the classes specified in clauses (a) to (f) of the said section shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and is subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code". Amongst these classes is the class covered by cl. (e) which relates to persons in respect of lands held by them as occupants in Berar. Thus, reading the relevant definitions along with the provisions of s. 146 of t.he Code it would follow that the land in the possession of the Bhumiswami who is a tenure-holder is in substance an estate. It is true that tho word "estate" as such has not been employed in the Code, but it must be borne in mind that Art. 31A(2)(a) refers not only to estate but also to its local equivalent. It was realised that in many areas the existing law relating to land tenures may not expressly define an estate as such though the said areas had their local equivalents described and defined. That is why the relevant provision of the Constitution has deliberately used both the word "estate" as well as its "local equivalent". The petitioners hold lands under the State and they pay land revenue for the lands thus held by them. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that under the existing law relating to land tenures the lands held by them fall within the class of the 100111 equivalents of the word "estate" l1S contemplated by
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 737
)
Art. 31A(2)(a). If that is so the contention raised by Mr. Limaye that the impugned Act is not protected by A rt. ' 31 A cannot succeed. As we have already indicated it is not disputed that if Art. 31A applies there can be no further challenge to the validity of the impugned statute.
r96r Shri !vlahadeo Paikaji f{olhe Yavatmal v, ·1 he State of Bomhay G . d d' a;en raga 11ar 1 •
The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed with costs, one set of hearing costs.
Petitions dismissed.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
April 4.
ABDUL KHADER
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
>
.,
Externment Order-Indian citizen going to Pakistan for a short period and coming back with Pakistan passport and Indian visa, if becomes a foreigner-Conviction for overstaying, if sustain ... able-Foreigners Act, I946 (r3 of I946), ss. 3(2)(c), 8, 9-Citizenship Act, I955 (LV II of I955), s. 9-Constitution of India, Art. 5(a).
The respondent was born in India in r924 and had lived there all along till about the end of r954. He had been paying rent for his shop in India for ten years upto about r958 and his . family was and had always been in India. At the end of r954 or the beginning of r955 he went to Pakistan from where he returned on January 20, r955, on a passport granted by the Pakistan Government which had a visa endorsed on it by the Indian authorities permitting him to stay in India up to April, 1955, The respondent applied to the Central Government for extension of the time allowed by the visa but the records did not show what order, if any, had been made on it. As the respondent had stayed beyond the time specified in the visa, he was on September 3, 1957, served with an order made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under s. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, requiring him to leave India. The order described him as a Pakistan national. On his failure to comply ,with this order 93
2 issues framed by the court
Whether agricultural lands held under the State and charged to land revenue in Vidarbha and Kutch are 'estates' or local equivalents protected under Article 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution.
Whether the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of BombayReferred¶13
[1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 489 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shri Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe
The State of Bombay
B. P. SINHA
S. K. DAS
A. K. SARKAR
K. C. DAS GUPTA
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
