http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: RAMANLAL GULAB CHAND SHAH ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS., ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1968

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S. MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  168            1969 SCR  (1)  42  CITATOR INFO :  R          1970 SC 398  (2)  R          1975 SC1193  (17)

ACT: Bombay  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bom.  Act 67  of 1948)  as  amended by Bombay Act 13 of 1956,  s.  65-Whether confers   arbitrary   naked  power--If   ultra   vires--Art. 31A(1)(b)    of   Constitution--Management    for    limited Period--Scope  of--Act amended after inclusion  in  Schedule IX--If protected by Art. 31-B of Constitution.

HEADNOTE: Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,  which was one of the Aots that had been  included  in the  Ninth  Schedule  to the Constitution,  was  amended  by Bombay  Act  13  of 1956, to give the State,  the  power  of taking  over the management of any land on the  ground  that full  and  efficient use of the land had not been  made  for purposes  of  agriculture  for two  consecutive  years,  for reasons not beyond the holder’s control.  Under s. 65(2), on the  assumption of management, the provisions of Chapter  IV of  the Act which contains ss. 44 and 61 apply to such  land mutatis  mutandis.   Under s. 61, the State  Government  may renounce  the management when it is satisfied that it is  no longer necessary. The appellants were for several years cultivating their land by  ploughing  it, sowing therein good seeds  of  grass  and cutting  the grass grown thereon and using it as fodder  for their cattle.  The concerned authority under the Act  issued a  notice to them to show cause why management of  the  land should  not  be  taken over by the  State.   The  appellants showed cause, but the concerned authority held that the land was cultivable, that grains and fruits could be grown on it, that  therefore full and efficient its,-, ,of the land  was, not  made  for two consecutive years and directed  that  the management of the land Should be taken over on behalf of the state.   The  appellants challenged the order  in  the  High Court’, but their petitions were dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

In  appeal  to  this  Court, on  the  question  whether  the amendment  to s.65 is ultra vires and therefore  the  orders passed thereunder are illegal, HELD  :  The  amendment  to s.  65  is  not  protected  from challenge  by Arts. 31-A or 31-B of the,  Constitution,  and since  the  amendment confers  arbitrary  ’and  unreasonable power  on the concerned officer, it is ultra vires, and  the orders  passed  thereunder, taking over  management  of  the lands, could not be upheld. (1)  Article  31A  does not protect  the  amendment  to  the section. Article  31A(1) (a) deals with acquisition of an  estate  or rights  therein, and extinguishment or modification of  such rights,  whereas Art. 3 1A(1) (b) specifically provides  for management  by  the,  State.   Therefore,  cl.  (a)  is  not attracted  and the matter should be considered in the  light of  cl.  (b).   But  that clause  can  be  invoked  only  if management  of  any property is taken over by the  State  in public  interest  or  to secure  proper  management,  for  a limited period.  Merely because there is a possibility of -a return of 43 the  land to the original owner, it could not be  said  that the management was for a limited period.  Section 61 itself, which  provides for termination of management, does not  set any  time  limit for the management.  Moreover,  though  the provisions of Chapter IV are made applicable to lands  whose management is taken over, so far as lands of non-landholders are  concerned,  it is under the rules  that  management  is carried  on  Under r. 35, the manager makes a  report  after about  a year to enable the Government to decide whether  it is  necessary to continue management or releaser  the  land. The management may be continued for periods of 5 years at  a time on the strength of periodic reports, but, if management is  to  continue  beyond  10  years,  a  formal  inquiry  is necessary   before  Government  decides  to   continue   the management.   Thus, assuming that the rules read with s.  61 could indicate a limited period of management the rules,  in fact, do not indicate such a time limit.  Without a limit of time  the management would be, an excuse for deprivation  of property without compensation.  Therefore the protection  of Art. 31A(1)(b) is not ,available. [53F-54G; 55B, D-E, G-H] (2)  Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule could not be  called in aid to protect the amendment. (a)  The Article gives protection to all the statutes listed in  Schedule  IX  of  the  Constitution,  but  the  impugned amendment was made after the Act was listed.  Therefore, the amended  section could not be said to have  been  considered when  the  Act was included in the Ninth Schedule.   If  the amended  section is also accepted as unassailable,  it  will have  The  effect of the State Legislature  doing  something beyond  its competence, namely, amending the Ninth  Schedule by including something new in it. [52F] (b)  The  preamble to the Act and s. 44 have the  protection of  Art. 3 1B .and are made applicable by s. 65(2) to  lands whose; management is taken over by the State.  Even assuming by   such  applicability,  that  they  give   validity   and protection  to s. 65, such protection is given only  to  the unamended section, because, the preamble and s. 44 deal with lands of landholders, whereas, the impugned amendment to  s. 65,  carries it into new fields by applying it to the  lands of non-landholders also. [52G-H] (3)  The  amendment  to s. 65 gives unguided  power  to  the concerned  officer.   It is therefore ultra  vires  and  the orders passed thereunder are invalid.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

Agriculture includes growing of grass, and other definitions emphasise  the  need  of  growing  grass  by  including  the operation in the word ’cultivation’.  Grass is as  important for  agricultural communities as foodgrains and fruits,  and therefore  the  Act  gives importance  to  both.   There  is nothing  to show from an agrarian point of view  that  grass grown  on the lands in question was not necessary at all  or that  it was being inefficiently grown.  No objective  tests are  laid down for deciding when cultivation can be said  to be efficient or when a different kind of cultivation can  be imposed  upon  the land.  A person is entitled to  hold  and enjoy his property as he thinks best, and if regard is to be had  for  the benefits of society a clear law  and  a  clear determination  are required, But, no provision is  made  for inquiry  to  determine the questions and no  opportunity  is given  to the cultivator to change his cultivation from  one kind to -another No criteria are laid down even with  regard to management on behalf of the State as to when it is to  be considered efficient.  The officer concerned, purely on  the basis  of his subjective satisfaction had held that the  and could grow grain or fruits. and on such opinion the land was to be taken away. [56G-57E] 44

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  17511773, 1799-19161 2451-2452, 2187-2189, 2214-2220, 2358-2372, 2391, 2577-2582/66 and 48-73, 88-104, 106, 107, 620, 705-708, 715- 719, 814-852, 894-908, 10041065, 1069 and 1557 of 1967. Appeals  from the judgments and orders, dated May 4,  5,1966 of  the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application  No. 260 of 1966 etc. B.R.L. lyengar, Ravinder Narain, O. C. Mathur, B. Dutta  and Bhuvanesh Kumar, for the appellants (in all the appeals). C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar, S. P. Nayyar, for the respondents (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. These appeals come before us on a  refer- ence  by  the  Constitution Bench  referring  the  question- whether  the  amendment of S. 65 of the Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands Act, 1948 by s. 35(1) of the Bombay  Act XIII of 1956, which added the words :               or the full and efficient use of the land  has               not been made for the purpose of  agriculture,               through the default of the holder or any other               cause whatsoever not beyond his control." has   the  protection  of  Arts.  31-A  and  31-B   of   the Constitution.  At the hearing of this reference before  this special  Bench  (Which  included  Judges  of  the  _Original Constitution Bench) it was decided to enlarge the  reference to  include the whole appeals so that they might be  decided in their entirety at the same sitting. These are appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat, 4/5 May, 1966 from many petitions question ing  the  declaration made by the Deputy  Collector,  Bulsar under  s.  65 of the Act.  Below is given the  text  of  the section  with the amended portion material to these  appeals underlined.   As a result of the declaration the  appellants stand to lose possession of their lands.  The facts on which the  several  declarations have come to be made may  now  be stated. The  appellants  own and possess lands in  the  district  of Bulsar  and  claim  to carry on  agricultural  operation  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

raising and cutting grass used as fodder.  They were  served with  notices  under S. 65 of the Act.  A sample  notice  is Annexure ’B’ to the petition of Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah  in the High Court.  It was issued from the office of the Deputy Collector   on  February  5,  1965  addressed  to   Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah.  It read as follows          "...............................          "................................ 45               This is to inform you that during the  inquiry               made  by  us it has been found  that  you  are               holding the following grass land to-ether with               the others                         (here follow particulars)               On  making inquiry it has been found  that  on               account  of  your  fault  (not)  beyond   your               control  you  have allowed to grow  the  grass               naturally  in  the  aforesaid  land  of   your               possession  continuously for two years  namely               1963-64 and 1964-65, and in two years prior to               that  kept the said land  uncultivated.   That               you  have, not made full and efficient use  of               the said land for the purpose of agriculture.               Therefore, I Shri M. B. Sheikh, Dist.   Deputy               Collector.   Bulsar, in view of the  authority               vested  in me under section 65 of the  Tenancy               Act,  have to inform you and call upon you  to               show  cause  as to why the management  of  the               aforesaid land or a portion thereof should not               be assumed by the Government under section  65               of the Tenancy Act. In consequence of the notice the parties appealed and denied the  allegation that for two consecutive years they had  not cultivated  these lands.  Ramanlal Gulabehand in  his  reply stated that :               id  land  cultivated by plough and  by  sowing               good seeds of grass therein, we have made  the               grass to               "65.  Assumption of management of lands  which               remained uncultivated.               (1)   If  it appears to the  State  Government               that  for any two consecutive years, any  land               has  remained  uncultivated or  the  full  and               efficient  use of the land has not  been  made               for  the purpose of agriculture,  through  the               default  of  the holder or  any   other  cause               whatsoever  not beyond his Control  the  State               Government  may, after making Such inquiry  as               it thinks fit, declare that the management  of               such  land shall be assumed.  The  declaration               so made be conclusive.               (2)   On  the  assumption of  the  management,               such  land shall vest in the State  Government               during  the continuance of the management  and               the  provisions  of Chapter IV  shall  mutatis               mutandis apply to the said land :               Provided  that  the manager  may  in  suitable               cases  give such land on  lease at  rent  even               equal to the amount of its assessment,               Provided  further that, if the  management  of               the  land has been assummed under  sub-section               (1)  on account of the default of the  tenant,               such  tenant shall cease to have any right  of               privilege under Chapter II or III, as the case               may  be, in respect of such land, with  effect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

             from  the date on and from which such  manage-               ment has been assummed." 46               grow  therein and by ploughing the land it  is               brought  in level and in this manner  formerly               after  cultivating  the land with  plough  the               seeds  have been sown therein and  since  last               six  years  or thereafter by  cultivating  the               said  lands continuously with the Tractor  and               sowing  seeds of grass therein, the  grass  is               being -town in the said land.  Therefore, that               allegation  that  said  land  has  been   kept               uncultivated continuously for two years namely               1963-64 and 1964-65 and for the years prior to               that  made in the notice is  absolutely  false               and we, specifically deny the same.   Further,               over  and  above the cultivation in  the  said               land we are all’-1o making the said land clean               and also we are erecting hedge round about  it               we  are  also removing the thorns  and-  other               things lying in the said land and also keep in               continuous watch over the same as soon as  the               grass  grown  therein,  and  when  the   grass               becomes  fit  to be cut, we cut the  same  and               bring the same at our house for our cattle and               or cattle eat the same for the whole  year....               (sic)" The  case  was  then sent to the  Additional  Mamlatdar  for report.   The  Mamlatdar’s  report is  not  before  us.   On February  28, 1965 the Dist.  Deputy Collector, Bulsar  made his  declaration  and we ,get the gist  of  the  Mamlatdar’s report from his declaration.  It appears that-the  Mamlatdar reported  that the lands were "cultivable" and  "food  crops and  fruit  trees can be grown" but the  owners  had  merely "allowed  grass  naturally  to grow  therein"  and  by  such operations only they had "not made full and efficient use of the  land  in the two consecutive years  viz.,  1963-64  and 1964-65".   The  Deputy  Collector  declared  that  he   was satisfied  that full and efficient use of the lands had  not been made consecutively during the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 as contemplated under s. 65 of the Act and that the  default was  not  due  to circumstances beyond the  control  of  the owners.   He  also declared that the lands could  grow  food crops   or  fruit  trees.   He  accordingly  appointed   the Mamlatdars  as  managers of said lands direction  that  they "should,  take  immediate steps to lease out the  lands  for cultivation  of food crops and manage tile land as  provided for management of estates under the provisions contained  in Chapter IV of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948".    This  declaration  was  questioned  by  the   writ petitions from which the present appeals arise. Before  the High Court six grounds were urged in support  of the   petition.    Broadly   speaking,   they   were;    the constitutionality  of  s.  65 of the  Act  under  Arts.  14, 19(1)(f)  and  (g) and 31: breach of principles  of  natural justice  on tile ground that the Deputy Collector  who  made the  declaration did not hear the ,parties; and lastly  that the declaration was vitiated on account of 47 omission to take into consideration factors relevant for the purpose of taking action.  Another ground of attack was that the  exercise  of  power  was  mala  fide  and  actuated  by political   considerations.   This  last  ground   was   not presented to us and therefore may not be mentioned again. The constitutional validity of the addition to s. 65 by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

Amending  Act was also questioned before us.   The  argument was that the added words introduced a condition which,  even if  taken with the Rules, was destructive of the right of  a person to hold and enjoy his property and to deprive him  of it  for  all  times  without  compensation.   It  was   also submitted  that  in  the law thus made too  much  power  and discretion  was  left  to  the  officer  concerned,  without indicating_ any standards of an objective nature to  control them.   It was also contended that ’,,he appellants, in  any event,  were fulfilling the requirements of  cultivation  as laid down in the Act itself. Before  entering  into a discussion of these points  we  may first  see what the Act enacts to achieve by itself  and  by its Rules.  The Act has a long preamble which indicates  the object of the law.  It says inter alia :-               "AND  WHEREAS on account of the neglect  of  a               landholder  or disputes between  a  landholder               and his tenants, the cultivation of his estate               has   seriously  suffersocial  conditions   of               peasants to ensuring the fun and efficient use               of  land for agriculture, it is  expedient  to               assume   management   of   estates   held   by               landholders   and  to  regulate   and   impose               restrictions  on the transfer of  agricultural               lands,   swelling  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; it is hereby enacted as               follows :-" The  following  deflutions  are  material  to  our  purpose. Section 2(1) provides               "Agriculture"   includes   horticulture,   the               raising of crops, grass or garden produce, the               use  by an agriculturist of the land  held  by               him  or a part thereof for the grazing of  his               cattle, the use of any land, whether or not an               appendage  to  rice  or paddy  land,  for  the               purpose  of  rab manure but does  not  include               allied pursuits, or the cutting of wood only;               Provided  that in the case of such  tracts  of               land  abounding in natural growth of grass  as               the State 48 Government  may, by notification, in the  official  Gazette, specify,  ’agriculture’ shall include the cutting  of  grass for any purpose." "To cultivate’ is defined by s. 2(5).  It reads               "   "to   cultivate"  with   its   grammatical               variations  and cognate expressions  means  to               till  or husband the land for the  purpose  of               raising  or  improving  agricultural  produce,               whether  by  manual  labour  or  by  means  of               ,cattle  or  machinery,  or to  carry  on  any               agricultural   operation  thereon;   and   the               expression  "uncultivated" shall be  construed               correspondingly.               Explanation-A  person who takes up a  contract               to cut grass or to gather the fruits or  other               produce  of  trees on any land, shall  not  on               that account only be deemed to cultivate  such               land." "To  hold land" is defined by s. 2(6c) and means  only  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

the person must be lawfully in actual possession of the land as an owner or tenant, as the case may be.  "Land-holder" is defined in s. 2(9) thus :               "  "Land-holder" means a  zamindar,  jagirdar,               saranjamdar,  inamdar,  talukdar, malik  or  a               khot or any person not hereinbefore  specified               who  is a holder of land or who is  interested               in  land  and whom the  State  Government  has               declared on account of the extent and value of               the land or his interest therein to be a land-               holder for the purposes of this Act." It  must be noticed that this definition does not take  into account  .a  tenant.  That word is defined in s.  2(18)  and reads :               "Tenant means a person who holds land on lease               and includes:-               (a)   a  person who is deemed to be  a  tenant               under section 4;               (b)   a person who is protected tenant; and               (c)   a person who is permanent tenant;               and  the  word ’landlord’ shall  be  construed                             accordingly:- Chapter II deals with tenancies, but with its provisions  we are  not concerned because they bear only upon matters  con- nected  with the setting up of tenancies, their  continuance and termination, the quantum of rent payable .and other such matters.   Section 5 of this Chapter prescribes the  ceiling area  of tenancy lands with reference to  jirayat,  seasonal irrigated  and  perennially  irrigated  lands.   Section   7 authorises Government to vary the 49 ceiling area and economic holding taking into  consideration the  situation  of the land, its  productive  capacity,  its situation in backward areas and any other factor that may be prescribed.  Chapter III then deals with special rights  and privileges  of tenants and makes provision for  distribution of land for personal cultivation.  We are not concerned with any matter involved in it.  Chapter IV deals with management of  estates held by landholders.  In view of the  definition of ’landholder’ this part cannot be applied directly to non- landholders  but  the  provisions  of  s.  65(2)  make   the provisions  of Chapter IV applicable ’lo the lands  of  non- landholders.  The intention of Chapter V. is to arrange  for the  management  of the land of landholders with a  view  to better  management and the liquidation of their debts.  The, relevant  sections  in this chapter (which applies  in  this indirect manner to non-landbolders lands) are ss. 44 to  48. 58, 59 and 61.  Section 44 reads :               "Notwithstanding any law for the time being in               force,  usage,  or  custom  or  the  terms  of               contract  or grant, when the State  Government               is satisfied that on account of the neglect of               a  landholder or disputes between him and  his               tenants,  the  cultivation of his  estate  has               seriously suffered, or when it appears to  the               State Government that it is necessary for  the               said  purpose or for the purpose  of  ensuring               the  full  and  efficient  use  of  land   for               agriculture  to  assume  management  off   any               landholder’,-,    estate,    a    notification               announcing  such intention shall be  published               in  the  Official Gazette, and  the  Collector               shall  cause notice of the substance  of  such               notification  to be given at convenient  place               in the ’locality where the estate is situated.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

             Such notification shall be conclusive." Section 45 vests the estate in the State Government and  the management is deemed to commence from. the date on which the notification  is published.  Section 46 gives the effect  of declaration  of management.  As a result of the  publication of  the  notification  under  s.  44  all  proceedings   and processes in civil courts in respect of actions against  the landholders   get   automatically  stayed  and   while   the management   continues,  no  further  proceedings   can   be commenced.  The holder of the estate also becomes  incapable of  entering into any contract, mortgage, etc. or  to  grant valid receipts for rents and profits.  The manager, however, has  competence  to do all these things.   Section  47  then enumerates the powers of the Manager in the management.   He is entitled to receive and recover aft rents and profits due in  respect  of the property under management and  for  this purpose  possesses all the powers of the holder as well  ,is the powers of the Collector under the law for the time being in force.  Under s. 48 the 50 Manager  is entitled to deduct from the recoveries the  cost of  the management and repairs, Government revenue  and  all other debts to Government, and rent to a superior holder and such  periodical  allowances as the Collector from  time  to time  fixes  for the maintenance and other expenses  of  the holder  and  such  members of his family  as  the  Collector directs and the costs of such improvements of the estates as the   Manager  thinks  necessary  or  as  approved  by   the Collector.   The balance is then applied by the Manager  for the  liquidation of the debts and liabilities of  the  land- holders  and if anything remains thereafter, it is  paid  to the  land-holder.  Sections 49 to 57 deal with claims to  be made against the estate and the power to remove the mortgage in  possession.  Sections 58 and 59 may be read here.   They confer powers of sales and lease on the Manager and to  pass receipts for any moneys, rents or profits raised or received by  him and the discharge of the persons on the strength  of such receipts.               "58. Subject to the rules made under this Act,               the  Manager after the liquidation scheme  has               been sanctioned as aforesaid, shall have power               to  sell or grant on lease all or any part  of               the estate under the management :               Provided  that the estate or any part  thereof               shall  not  be  sold or leased  for  a  period               exceeding  ten  years  without  the   previous               permission of the Collector;               Provided further that the Collector shall  not               give  such permission unless he  is  satisfied               that  such sale or lease is necessary for  the               benefit of the estate (or unless such sale  is               in  favour of a tenant under section 32,  32F,               32  1 or 32 0).The decision of  the  Collector               shall be final.               59.The Manager’s receipt for any moneys, rents               or  profits  raised or received by  him  under               this Act shall discharge the person paying the               same therefrom or from being concerned to  see               to the application thereof." Section  61  next  provides  for  the  termination  of   the management. It must be read in full :               "61.   The  State Government, when  it  is  of               opinion  that it is not necessary to  continue               the   management  of  the  estate,  by   order               published in the Official Gazette direct  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

             the  said management shall be terminated.   On               the  termination of the said  management,  the               estate shall be delivered into the  possession               of  the  holder,  or, if he is  dead,  of  any               person  entitled to the said  estate  together               with  any  balances which may be  due  to  the               credit 51 .lm15 of the said holder.  All acts done or purporting to be, done by  the Manager during the continuance of the management  of the  estate shall be binding on the holder or to any  person to whom the possession of the estate has been delivered." The provisions though applicable to landholders are  applied by   s.  65(2)  mutatis  mutandis  to  the  lands  of   non- landholders.   In other words, the scheme of the  management (apart   from   liquidation  of  debts)  applies   to   non- landholders.   The other provisions dealing with  management for the liquidation of debts, which are in the nature of the provisions of the Court of Wards Act, may not be  considered here because they are not relevant to our purpose. We  may next see some of the Rules which have  been  framed; under  s.  82  of the Act.  Rule 30 provides  for  a  notice before  action  under s. 44 is taken and provides  that  the landholder’s  statement  shall be recorded  as  regards  the intention  of  the Government to assume  management  of  the estate.   Rule 33 provides that when a Manager  proposes  to sell  any  estate or any part +hereof under s. 58  he  shall give  notice to the landholder to show cause why the  estate or a part thereof should not be sold -and must afford him an hearing.   The  method of selling or leasing of  the  estate under management or any part thereof is indicated in Rule 34 and it is by public auction unless such a course is, in  the opinion of the Manager, unnecessary or inexpedient.  Rule 35 is important and may be set down in extenso :               "35.  Period of continuance of  management  of               estates :-               (1)   The  Manager  of  an  estate  of   which               management has been assumed shall, before  the               31st day of March following the year in  which               the management has been assumed.  Send to  the               State Government a report regarding the  mana-               gement  of the estate and shall state  whether               in his opinion it is necessary to continue the               management  for the purpose for which  it  was               assumed.               (2)   After  taking  into  consideration   the               report of the Manager made under sub-rule (1),               the State Government shall decide whether  the               management should be terminated under  section               61  or continued further and if so,  for  what               period,  such  period not being in  excess  of               five years at a time. 52               (3)   If  the  State  Government  decides   to               continue  the management the,  Manager  shall,               from time to time, forward his report  through               the Collector ,and shall in any case submit  a               report  not later than two months before  the,               expiry of the current period of the management               to  enable  Government to decide  whether  the               management  shall be terminated under  section               61 or shall further be continued :               Provided  that  if the management-  is  to  be               continued beyond the expiry of ten years  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

             the   date  on  which  it  was  assumed,   the               Collector  shall hold a formal inquiry in  the               manner  prescribed by the Bombay Land  Revenue               Code, 1879, and, after recording the statement               of the landholder or any person acting on  his               behalf, shall submit the record and proceeding               of  the inquiry and his report to  the  State,               Government,   which   shall  be   taken   into               consideration by the, State Government  before               it  decides  to continue  the  management  any               further." The  other Rules do, not bear upon the  present  controversy and may be left out of consideration.  We may now proceed to consider this case. The first question to consider is the vires of the  addition to 65 by the Amending Act, which addition has been shown  in the   section  quoted  already.   This  matter  has  to   be considered  with reference to Arts. 31-A and 31-B read  with the Ninth ’Schedule.  The protection is claimed on the basis of  these two articles by the State.  Article 31-B no  doubt gives  protection to all statutes listed in Schedule  IX  of the  Constitution  and this Act is so listed.   But  it  was listed before the amendment of s. 65 and that amendment came to  be said to have, been considered when the  Amendment  of the  Constitution was made.  That Amendment if  accepted  as unassailable  will have the indirect effect of amending  the original Schedule IX by including something in it which  was not   there,  before.   This  is  undoubtedly   beyond   the competence  of any State legislature.  The argument  of  the learned  Attorney  General that the general schemes  of  the Preamble  and the provisions of s. 44 made applicable by  s. 65(2)  both of which have the protection of Art.  31-B  must give protection is fallacious.  Even if the preamble and  S. 44  could be read (and we do not decide that they can be  so read) to give validity it is clear that the preamble  talked only  of landholders and the addition of the words to s.  65 is  intended  to  apply  the  principle  to  nonlandholders. Similarly the provisions of s. 44 under the unmended.   Act, could not have been made applicable to such non- 53 landholders.  The amendment of s. 65 was really carrying the Act into new fields and not being considered as an amendment of  the Constitution, how can it claim the protection  given to  the  unamended Act?  Therefore Art. 31-B and  the  Ninth Schedule cannot be called in aid. The matter may, however, be considered under Art. 31-A.   If Art.  31-A  gives protection there would be an  end  to  the appellants’ contention if not the matter must be  considered on  principles  settled  by this Court.   Article  31-A  was relied  upon strongly by the learned Attorney  General.   He attempted to bring the amendment of s. 65 under clauses  (a) and  (b) of Art. 31-A (1).  We may now consider  the  matter under these two clauses separately.  Article 31-A(1) (a) and (b) read :               "31-A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in               article 13, no law providing for--               (a)   the  acquisition  by the  State  of  any               estate  or  of  any  rights  therein  or   the               extinguishment  or  modification of  any  such               rights, or               (b)   the taking over of the management of any               property  by  the State for a  limited  period               either  in the public interest or in order  to               secure the proper management of the  property,               or"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

             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, article 19 or article 31." The amendment of s. 65 gives additional power of taking over lands of non-landholders for management on two grounds.  The first  is that the land must have remained uncultivated  for the  two consecutive years and the second is that  full  and efficient use of the land had not been made of the land.  In so far as the first is concerned s. 65 in its original  form included that condition and’ it cannot be challenged because of the protection of Art. 31-B read with the Ninth Schedule. Therefore action could be taken. against any land which  had remained  uncultivated  for two years.  The action  in  this case  is not taken because of this part of s. 65 But  in  so far as the second part is concerned the question must  arise whether  taking  over of management can be said  to  be  (a) acquisition by the State or (b) extinguishment of the rights of  the  holder or (c) modification of any such  rights   of these  it is impossible to say that this was an  acquisition by  the State.That phrase has received construction on  more than  one occasion in, this Court.  Although  the  decisions cannot be said to be uniform, 54 one  thing is certain that the taking away must be  for  the Slate and by the State.  Such acquisition must transfer  the ownership  of the property to the State or to a  corporation owned or controlled by the State.  Since S. 65 or the, other provisions of the Act do not spell out any such thing, there is   no  acquisition  by  the  State.   There  is  also   no extinguishment of the rights of the holder.  The rights  are merely  suspended and he, continues to be the owner.   There can   of  course  be  extinguishment  of   rights   with,out acquisition  by the State but there must be  extinguishment, that  is complete termination of the rights.  The scheme  of the  Act in S. 61 contemplates return of the,  lands  unless sold  to  others and is those cases in which a sale  is  not affected  it cannot be said that there is an  extinguishment of  the  rights.  Therefore that part ,of Art.  31-A(1)  (a) does  not  apply.   The third part  namely  modification  of rights  might have been considered by us but this ,Court  in Thakur   Raghubir  Singh  v.  Court  of  Wards,  Ajmer   and another(1) gave a limited meaning to the expression and that case  has been applied on many occasions.  It  was  observed there :               "The learned Attorney-General laid emphasis on               the  word modification" used in article  31-A.               That  word in the context of the article  only               means a modification of the proprietary  right               of  a citizen like an extinguishment  of  that               right  and cannot include within its  ambit  a               mere suspension of the right of management  of               estate  for a time, definite  or  indefinite."               (emphasis added) Thus  mere  suspension of the right of management  of  one’s property  without modification of the proprietary right  was no+ held sufficient to give protection of Art. 31-A (1) (a). We would have given more thought to this matter but for  the re-enactment  -of Art. 31-A with retrospective effect  after Thakur  Raghubir Singh’s case(1).  Thakur  Raghubir  Singh’s case did not interpret the article as it is today.  In  view of  the, retrospective amendment -of the article it  may  be said that this Court interpreted an article which never  was enacted  in that form.  Therefore the less we speak  of  the matter  from  the angle of observations in  Thakur  Raghubir

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

Singh’s  case  the better.  But even so the  matter  is  not advanced much further. Looking  at  the matter in the light of Art. 31-A as  it  is today  (and  it  must  be deemed to  have  been  so  always) ’management’  is  specially  provided in  (b)  and  must  be considered under that clause.  The words of that clause  are ’the taking over of the ,management of any property’.   ’Any property’ means property (1)  [1953] S.C.R. 1049. 55 of  any kind and would embrace land of landholders and  non- landholders  alike.  The words ’by the State’ indicate  that the taking over must be by the State.  The next  requirement is  that  this  taking over must be  either  in  the  public interest or in order to secure the proper management of  the property.  And lastly the taking over must be for a  limited period.  The case here is covered by this clause and  clause (a) is therefore not attracted. It is, however, objected that the taking over is not limited to  any period.  Section 61 which is protected by the  Sixth Schedule  and  cannot be called in question  says  that  the State  Government  may  announce  the  termination  of   the management  when it is satisfied that it is  not  necessary. This  does  not set any limit leaving the matter  at  large. The learned Attorney-General however desired us to read  the rules  to show that there is a limit of time.  He says  that the  rules be read in conjunction with the provisions of  s. 61  because the section does not give any indication of  any limit  of  time.   Although  s. 61  may  not  by  itself  be challengeable,  the rules may be, notwithstanding that  they were made under powers given by s. 82.  A limit of time  was deliberately  put  in  by the  constitutional  amendment  to distinguish between cases which fall within management  from those  of extinguishment and modification.  Without a  limit of time the management would be an excuse for deprivation of property without compensation and that is not the  intention of Art. 31 (a).  It is hardly to be thought that an antimony between Art. 31 and 31-A (1) (b)was deliberately introduced. We  do not express an opinion whether the rules can be  read to  indicate  the limited period of management or  that  the scheme  of the Act and the rules must be viewed together  in this  connection.  But we are clear that the rules  do,  not improve matters.  Although it may not ’be possible to attack s.  61 which enables the State to hold the property as  long as necessary as the section is protected, the action of  the State in making such rules as give no indication of a  limit of  time may be a circumstance to consider if the  claim  of protection is made out.  Under clause (b) of Art. 3 1 A (  1 )  protection is to State action in taking  over  management for  a limited period and to laws enabling this to be  done, but  not to management unlimited in time.  Section  61  read with s. 81 must therefore require, that any rule made should accord with the protection given on these terms by Art. 31-A otherwise the protection will fail.  Advantage of the  words of  s. 61 cannot be taken to create a permanent  deprivation of the property and yet claim protection of Art. 31-A(1)(b). It is in this context that we must examine the provisions. We  must first clear one misapprehension and it is that  the provisions  of Chapter IV can be said to apply in  toto,  It must 56 be remembered that that chapter is primarily concerned  with the liquidation of liability of land-holders and schemes  to effect that purpose.  Section 58 does not give a clean power of sale, but only after a liquidation scheme is  sanctioned.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

That  applies to landholders and may not be made  applicable to non-landholders. To  see  how the management is to work in  respect  of  non- landholders  we  have  to  turn  to  the  rules.   Here  the pertinent  rule is r. 35.  That rule requires a report  from the.   Manager  after  about  a year  to  enable  the  State Government  to consider whether it is necessary to  continue management.  The State Government may then decide to release the  land from management, or continue it.   The  management may  continue  for  periods  of 5 years at  a  time  on  the strength  of periodic reports but if management is  to  con- tinue beyond 10 years a formal inquiry is necessary and then Government  may decide to continue the  management  further. No limit of time is then indicated.  There is, therefore, no limit set at all.  The protection of Art. 3 1 A ( 1 ) (b) is available only when there is a definite limit in the law for the  period  of management.  Neither s. 61 alone,  nor  read with the rules indicates any such limit and the condition of protection  from  Articles  13, 14, 19 and 31  is  thus  not available.   The  argument of the  learned  Attorney-General that  so long as there is a possibility of a return  of  the land to the original owner, we must construe the  management as  of  a  limited period is not acceptable to  us.   It  is hardly to be expected that a return of property which is  on the  Greek  Kalends can be construed as a  return  within  a limited  period.  Therefore the scheme of the Act  ought  to have  shown the limit.  It may not be possible  to  question the  unamended  section  65  because of  Art.  31-B  or  the provisions  of s. 61 which is also protected but in  respect of  the addition to s. 65 the protection of Art. 31A(1)  (b) can only be invoked if the law can show a real limit for the period  of  management.   If the  management  is  likely  to continue  for  an indefinite period it is not in  any  sense limited  and,  therefore,  the  amended  part  cannot  claim protection, s. 61 notwithstanding. Once the matter can be gone into the provisions of the addi- tional  part  will have to be examined  for  reasonableness. Here  the difficulties are many for the State.   We  mention only  a few of them.  There is nothing to show what are  the requirements of action.  The deprivation of property is made to  depend upon the subjective determination of an  officer. Take  for example this case itself.  Action is  taken  under the,  impugned part of s. 65.  AgriCulture includes  growing of  grass,  and  other definitions  emphasise  the  need  of growing  grass  by  including  the  operation  in  the  word cultivation’.   Grass  is  as  important  for   agricultural communities  as foodgrains and fruits.  Without  the  former the  cattle must die just as without the latter there  would be human starvation. 57 The  Act, therefore, gives importance to both, naming  grass along  with crops and garden produce and  horticulture.   If grass  is  being  grown as an  agricultural  operation,  one cannot just take grass lands and convert them into orchards. Similarly   orchards  cannot  ’be  taken  and  turned   into pastures.   Before action is taken it must be quite  clearly established  that  the kind of agriculture  which  is  being carried  on is being carried on inefficiently or that  there is some distinct advantage in the new management to carry on the  new kind of agriculture.  The Deputy  Collector  merely thinks  that the land can grow grain or fruits.  But so  can any  grass land or pasture.  There is nothing to  show  that from  an agrarian point of view grass grown in  these  lands was  not necessary at all or was being inefficiently  grown. A  person is entitled to hold and enjoy his property  as  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

thinks  best.   If regard is to be had for the  benefits  of society a clear law and a clear determination are  required. Both  the  elements  are missing.  It is not  said  in  what circumstances cultivation can be said to be inefficient.. It is  also  not  said  what  would  be  considered   efficient cultivation and what inquiries are needed to determine this. It is also not said under what circumstances different  kind of  cultivation can be imposed upon the land.  The law  does not  provide for an Opportunity to the cultivator to  change his cultivation from one kind to another.  It does not  even require,  that  the management should be  efficient.   After taking  over the lands the Manager can lease them to  others but  it is not stated what conditions they have to  observe. Merely on the opinion of an officer, land may be taken  away ’because the officer thinks that wheat is to be preferred to fruits  and  fruits to grass and so on and  so  forth.   The management  is taken over without any clear limit  of  time. In  these  circumstances  it  is  difficult  to  uphold  the declarations  made  in  these  cases or  to  give  them  the protection of Art. 31-A(1) (b). The  appeals will, therefore, be allowed with costs and  the orders of the Deputy Collector quashed.  There shall be  one set  of  hearing  fee  in each  group,  where  same  counsel appeared for Y.P.                      all the appeals. Sup.  C. I./68-5 58