http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL ETC. ETC.ANDSMT. LAKSHMI BAI PATILV

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/07/1990

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1771            1990 SCR  (3) 497  1990 SCC  (4) 102        JT 1990 (3)   329  1990 SCALE  (2)144

ACT:     Constitution  of India: Article 31A (1)  (a)--Provisions fixing  ceiling-Whether  essential in a  statute  concerning agrarian reform.     Goa,  Daman  and  Diu Agricultural  Tenancy  Act,  1964: Chapter  11A--Section  18A-J--Amendment  Act,  1976--Whether constitutionally valid.

HEADNOTE:     The respondents in the civil appeals and the  petitioner in the writ petition were landlords in Goa, whose lands were in  the possession of the cultivating tenants. Prior to  the enactment  of  the Goa, Daman and Diu  Agricultural  Tenancy (5th  Amendment) Act, 1976 the nature of the rights  of  the landlords  and tenants were governed by the Goa.  Daman  and Diu  Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. By Chapter III  of  the 1964  Act the landlord was permitted to resume his land  for bona fide personal cultivation, subject to a ceiling.  Chap- ter III, however, was to come into force only on a notifica- tion  for the purpose, which was never issued. The  impugned 5th  Amendment omitted Chapter III from the 1964 Act and  in its place included Chapter IIA. By the provisions of section 18A  of Chapter IIA the land belonging to a landlord not  in his  cultivating possession on the tiller’s day  got  trans- ferred to the tenant-in-possession for a price to be paid to the landlord.     The respondents filed writ applications in the Court  of the  Judicial Commissioner challenging the validity  of  the 5th  Amendment Act. The writ petitions were allowed  by  the Judicial  Commissioner who held that the Amendment Act  vio- lated  Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and  that  the protection of Article 31A was not available as the scheme of the Amendment Act did not constitute agrarian reform. 498     During the pendency of the present appeals the  impugned Amendment  Act along with the main Act were included in  the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. The writ petition filed in this  Court under Article 32 has challenged  this  constitu- tional amendment as illegal and ultra vires.     Before  this  Court it was contended on  behalf  of  the respondentslandlords that fixation of ceiling was the  heart

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

and  soul  of  agrarian reform;  that  provisions  regarding ceiling were essential for a statute enacted as a measure of agrarian  reform  and in their absence the  same  could  not claim protection of Article 31A of the Constitution; that in the absence of provisions for ceiling the impugned Amendment Act  had bestowed undeserved benefit on the tenants  at  the cost  of the landlords, without reference to the  respective areas in their possession. In this connection it was submit- ted that in many a case, a cultivating tenant in  possession of  lands  under  different landlords might  be  having  far larger  area of land than his landlords and there could  not be  any preference to clothing such a tenant with  title  to the land at the cost of his comparatively poor landlords. Allowing  the appeals and dismissing the writ petition  this Court,     HELD:  (1)  It is well settled that  the  protection  of Article  31A is limited to the laws which serve the  purpose of agrarian reform. [504D]     (2)  It cannot be denied that the appropriately  enacted statutes having provisions for fixing ceiling of holdings do fall in the category of legislation for agrarian reform, but that  proposition does not say and cannot be interpreted  as holding  that fixing ceiling areas is a basis and  essential feature  of  agrarian reform without which a law  cannot  be included  in  the category. A proper  statute  even  without including  provisions regarding ceiling may be  entitled  to the  protection  of Article 31A provided it is  otherwise  a measure of agrarian reform. [505C, F]     Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay,  [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 489; Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S.B. Kamble  & Ors., [1975] 3 SCR 885 and Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Ant. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1973] 1 SCR 258, referred to.     (3)  The title to the land shall vest in the tiller  and the  landlord shall get the compensation. Earlier  also  his right  to resume the land for personal cultivation was  con- siderably restricted by the provisions of the 1964 Act. As a result of the impugned 5th Amendment Act he has been 499 divested  of this limited right for a price, and the  tiller shall  no more be under a threat of dispossession.  The  im- pugned provisions must therefore be accepted as a measure of land reform. [509G-H; 510A]     (4)  The argument of the respondents that in absence  of provisions  fixing ceiling on the area of land which can  be held  by a person a statute cannot be accepted as a  measure of land reform is, accordingly, rejected. The 5th  Amendment Act is. therefore, entitled to the protection of Article 31A and  it cannot be struck down on the ground of violation  of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. [510A-B]     Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay,  [1959] Supp.  1  SCR 489; Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must. Mazirunnes- sa,  [1962] 1 SCR 724; Purushothaman Nambudiri v. The  State of Kerala, [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 753; Fida Ali & Ors. v.  State of  Jammu  & Kashmir,  [1975] 1 SCR 340;  Dattatraya  Govind Mahajan  v.  State of Maharashtra, [1977] 2  SCR  790;  K.K. Kochuni v. The State of Madras, [1960] 3 SCR 887 and Sanjeev Coke  Manufacturing  Company v. Bharat Coking  Coal  Ltd.  & Anr., [1983] 1 SCR 1000, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1314 to 1318 of 1979.     Appeals by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

4.4.1979  of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman &  Diu  in Special Civil Application (Writ Petition) Nos. 75,76, 77  of 1977, 103 and 111 of 1978. AND Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     G.  Ramaswamy,  Additional  Solicitor  General,   T.V.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, S.S. Ray, Y.S. Chitaley, Joachin  Dias, A.B. Nadkarni, Arun Madan, Ms. A. Subhashini, S. Ganesh  and R. Swamy for the Appellants/Petitioners.     Manohar  S.  Usgaocar, F.S. Nariman, G.L.  Sanghi,  M.N. Phadke, R.F. Nariman, S.K. Mehta, Atul Nauda, Aman  Vachher, Mrs.  Nineti  Sharma,  S.M. Usgaocar and M.K.  Dua  for  the Respondents. 500 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     A.V.  Rangam,  S.  Lotlakar, A.N. Rajan  and  Ms.  Sarla Chandra for the Intervener.     SHARMA, J. The civil appeals No. 1314 to 1318 of 1979 by certificate  are directed against the decision of the  Judi- cial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu, declaring the  Goa, Daman  and  Diu Agricultural Tenancy  (5th  Amendment)  Act, 1976, as unconstitutional. The respondents are landlords  in Goa.  The lands were in possession of the tenants  who  were cultivating the same and paying rent to the respondents. The respondents were divested of their title in the lands by the provisions  of the impugned Act which came in force in  1976 vesting the same in the tenants. The respondents filed  five writ applications in the court of the Judicial  Commissioner challenging  the  validity of the Amendment  Act.  The  writ petitions were allowed by the impugned judgment. It has been held that the Act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Consti- tution and the protection of Article 31A is not available as the scheme of the Act does not constitute agrarian reform.     2.  It has been contended on behalf of  the  respondent- writ  petitioners  that the landlords in Goa  are  generally small  land-holders and their condition is not  better  than that  of the tenants and in that view the Act divesting  the landlords of their title in the land and veting the same  in the tenants suffers from the vice of illegal discrimination. A similar Act was earlier passed by the Maharashtra Legisla- ture also which has been found to be constitutionally valid. The writ petitioners have, before the court below,  success- fully argued that the decision in that case is not  applica- ble  inasmuch  as the Maharashtra  Act  contains  provisions fixing ceiling to which the other provisions are subject to, while  there is no such restriction in the present Act.  The result is that although the Maharashtra Act had to be upheld as a measure of agrarian reform and thus protected by  Arti- cle  31A of the Constitution, the present Act cannot  be  so interpreted.     3.  During  the pendency of these appeals  the  impugned Amendment  Act along with the main Act were included in  the 9th  Schedule  of  the Constitution and the  assent  of  the President  was  received on the 26th of August,  1984.  Smt. Lakshmibai  Narayan Patil, the writ petitioner in the  three of the cases in the court of Judicial Commissioner (respond- ent  in Civil Appeals No. 1314, 1315 and 1316 of  1979)  has challenged the constitutional amendment as illegal and ultra vires  by  filing  an application under Article  32  of  the Constitution which has 501 been numbered as Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988.     4.  By the impugned Amendment Act, Chapter IIA has  been included in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

1964  (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Chapter III  has been  deleted and some consequential changes have been  made in  some  other sections. Chapter IIA  deals  with  "Special rights and privileges of tenants" as indicated by the  head- ing.  Broadly speaking, by the provisions of s. 18A of  this Chapter  the land belonging to a landlord not in his  culti- vating  possession on the tiller’s day gets  transferred  to the tenant-inpossession for a price to be paid to the  land- lord. The expression ’tenant’ has been given a larger  mean- ing  under the Act by s. 4. By the second proviso of s. 4  a sub-tenant cultivating any land on or after 1.7. 1962 has to be deemed to be a lawfully cultivating tenant  notwithstand- ing  the  fact that the creation of sub-tenancy  might  have been  prohibited  by any law, and the tenant  prior  to  the creation  of  the  sub-tenancy (who may be  referred  to  as intermediary  tenant) is not to be treated as a tenant.  The price  of the land in question has to be determined and  the payment  made in accordance with the provisions  of  Chapter IIA.  Separate  provisions have been made  with  respect  to special cases where tenant is a minor or has been evicted by the  landlord before the tiller’s day. The provisions of  S. 18-J provide for the resumption and disposal of the land not purchased by the tenant by reason of purchase being ineffec- tive  under  s. 18C or s. 18H or due to the failure  of  the tenant  to  take steps under s. 18B within time.  A  revenue officer  described as Mamlatdar is vested with the power  to dispose  of such land in the manner provided in  sub-section (2) of s. 18J. Such land has to be disposed of in the  order of  priority, whereunder 75% of such land is to be  disposed of  by  sale  to persons belonging to  Scheduled  Castes  or Scheduled Tribes and thereafter the remaining land to  serv- ing  members  of the Defence Forces of the  country  or  ex- servicemen  or freedom fighters who agree to  cultivate  the land personally. If the land still remains undisposed of, it first  goes  to  agricultural labourers  and  thereafter  to landless  persons. If some of the land still remains  avail- able,  it has to be sold to a co-operative farming  society. Section  18-K  puts a restriction on transfer  of  the  land which  the  tenant acquires by purchase under  the  Chapter. Only with the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar any  trans- fer  whether  by sale, gift, exchange,  mortgage,  lease  or assignment can be made.     5.  If the land-owner is himself cultivating  it,  there being  no  tenant or a deemed tenant he continues to  be  in possession  without  any curtailment of his rights.  On  the other hand, in a case where the tenant 502 after  getting a tenancy from the landlord  inducts  another person as a sub-tenant who cultivates the same, the benefits of the impugned provisions go to him and not to the  tenant. The  object of the Amending Act is thus clearly to vest  the land  in  the  tiller. The right of any  person  to  receive merely  rent is taken away for a price. The respondents  who are  landlords,  have challenged the Amendment  Act  whereby Chapter  IIA has been inserted in the Act on the  ground  of illegal  discrimination. The argument is that in absence  of provisions  for ceiling the impugned Act bestows  undeserved benefit on the tenants at the cost of the landlords, without reference  to the respective areas in their possession.  The Amendment  was  enforced as also the impugned  judgment  was delivered before the deletion of Clause (f) of Article 19(1) from the Constitution and one of the grounds which has  been successfully urged before the High Court is based on Article 19(1)(f).  So  far Article 31A of the Constitution  is  con- cerned,  the case of the respondents which has found  favour

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

with the court below is that the provisions of the  impugned Amendment Act cannot be held to be a step by way of agrarian reforms  and, therefore, cannot have the protection  of  the Article. This is the main thrust of the argument of Mr. R.F. Nariman  in  this Court also. He has  strenuously  contended that  for extending the protection of Article  31A(1)(a)  to any  particular  law it is necessary that the  law  contains adequate  measure  against concentration of  wealth  in  the hands  of a few. It is claimed that fixation of  ceiling  is the heart and soul of agrarian reform without which it  does not survive.     6.  It has been observed in the impugned  judgment  that from  the  transcripts of newspapers produced  by  the  writ petitioners and the statements alleged to have been made  by the  late Chief Minister that there were very few big  land- holders in Goa, it can be assumed that the landlords in  Goa are  small holders of land. Certain statements made  in  the affidavit  filed before the Court were also referred  to  in this  connection. An attempt was made in this Court also  to urge  that there could not be many big landlords in Goa  and therefore their deprivation of the lands cannot be deemed to be  a step towards fair distribution. It was contended  that in many a case, a cultivating tenant in possession of  lands under  different landlords may be having far larger area  of land  than his landlords and there cannot be any  justifica- tion in clothing such a tenant with title to the land at the cost  of  his  comparatively poor  landlords.  The  argument proceeded,  that  so  far the holdings of  the  tenants  are concerned.  a necessity of placing ceiling on  the  holdings cannot be denied in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State stating that further legislation for that  purpose was  in contemplation. Mr. R.F. Nariman emphasized the  fact that no such law has been 503 brought in force till now. To the last part of the  argument it  was tightly pointed out by the learned counsel  for  the appellants  that since the Amendment Act was struck down  by the  Judicial Commissioner’s Court as ultra  vires,  further amendment  in the Act by way of introducing  provisions  for ceiling  had to await this Court’s judgment in  the  present civil appeals.     7. Before proceeding with the main argument of Mr.  R.F. Nariman  and the cases relied upon by him, it may be  useful to briefly refer to the nature of the right of the landlords and the tenants under the Act before the insertion of  Chap- ter  IIA  by  the impugned Amendment Act. The  rights  of  a tenant  were heritable and Sections 8 and 9  prohibited  the termination of his tenancy and his eviction except where the himself  surrendered his right to the landlord or where  the landlord  established one of the grounds specified  in  this regard. By an Amendment in 1966. the tenant was given, by s. 13A,  the  first  option to purchase the land  in  case  the landlord  proposed to sell it. By Chapter III  the  landlord was permitted to resume the land, subject to the ceiling  of an  area of 2 hectares in case of paddy land and 4  hectares in  other lands, on the ground of bona fide requirement  for personal  cultivation; but this right was also dependent  on the  fulfilment of certain conditions. This Chapter  was  to come into force only on a notification for the purpose which was never issued. By the impugned Amendment Act this Chapter was omitted from the Act. In effect the right of  resumption contemplated by the Act never vested in the landlords before it disappeared from the statute book. It may be stated  here that  the 1964 Act is not under attack and the challenge  is confined  to its 5th Amendment whereby Chapter IIA has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

included and Chapter III deleted.       The statement of objects and reasons was placed before us  wherein it has been mentioned that there was  a  similar legislation in force in the neighbouring State of  Maharash- tra.  The reference obviously is to the Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands (Amendment)Act, 1956, mentioned in  para- graph 2 above, introducing similar amendments in the  Bombay Tenancy  and  Agricultural Lands Act,1948. In  Sri  Ram  Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959] Supp 1 SCR  489, the  validity of the Act was upheld by a Constitution  Bench of this Court. It has been contended that the Maharashtra A- mending Act including provisions fixing ceiling which effec- tively  prevented  accumulation of large areas  of  land  in possession  of  the tenants; and since there is  no  similar safeguard  in the present 5th Amendment Act,  the  aforesaid decision does not come to its rescue 504 and leads to the conclusion that in absence of similar  provi- sions  the Act cannot be sustained. The learned counsel  for  the respondents  relied upon the observation of several decisions  of this Court in support of his contention that provisions regarding ceiling  are  essential  for a statute enacted as  a  measure  of agrarian  reform and in their absence the same cannot claim  pro- tection of Article 31A of the Constitution.     9. Article 31A(1)(a) declares that no law providing  for "the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein  or  the  extinction or  modification  of  any  such rights", shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent  with,  or takes away or abridges  any  of  the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. The 5th Amend- ment  Act  has received the assent of the President  as  re- quired  by  the first proviso. The  expression  ’estate’  is undisputedly  applicable in the present case in view of  the provisions  of  clause  (2) of the  said  Article.  Although Article 31A(1)(a) does not by express language restrict  its application  to a particular nature of law, it is  now  well settled that the protection of the Article is limited to the laws  which  serve the purpose of agrarian reform,  and  Mr. R.F.  Nariman is right in relying upon the  observations  at page  90IF of the judgment in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd.  and Others v. S.B. Kamble and Others, [1975] 3 SCR page 885. The learned  counsel has further urged that the  other  observa- tions  in this judgment support his main argument also  that in  absence  of provisions for ceiling a statute  cannot  be held  to be for agrarian reform. We are unable to agree.  In that  case the constitutional validity of the  Act  amending certain provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural  (Ceiling and  Holdings) Act was under challenge and it was sought  to be  saved  inter alia with the aid of Article  3  1A.  While discussing the scope of Article 3 1A, the Court at page 902F relied  upon the decision in Balmadies Plantations Ltd.  and Another  v.  State of Tamil Nadu, [1973] 1 SCR 258,  in  the following terms:          "In  the case of Balmadies Plantations Ltd. &  Anr. v.  State of Tamil Nadu it was held while dealing  with  the provisions of Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and  Conver- sion  into Ryotwari) Act that the object and general  scheme of  the Act was to abolish intermediaries between the  state and  the  cultivator and to help the  actual  cultivator  by giving him the status of direct relationship between himself and  the state. The Act, as such, in its broad outlines  was held  to  be a measure of agrarian reform and  protected  by article 31A." 505 At page 903H it was observed that in a sense agrarian reform

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

is  wider than land reform. At page 905 the  conclusion  was summarised  under  8 heads, and Mr.  R.F.  Nariman  strongly relied on the last proposition stating, "(8)  A provision fixing ceiling area and providing for  the disposal  of surplus land in accordance with the rules is  a measure of agrarian reform." It cannot be denied that the appropriately enacted  statutes having provisions for fixing ceiling of holdings do fall  in the  category  of legislation for agrarian reform,  but  the proposition  relied upon, does not say and cannot be  inter- preted  as holding that it is such an essential  feature  of agrarian  reform without which a law cannot be  included  in that  category. The observations at page 902F in respect  of the  judgment in Balmadies Plantations case, quoted  earlier rather negative such an assumption.     10. The case of Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi (supra) has not only  been  distinguished in the impugned judgment  but  has been relied upon for supporting the writ petitioner’s  argu- ment.  Reliance has been placed on the observations at  page 495  of the reported judgment to the effect that the  object of  the  Maharashtra Act, which was under  consideration  in that  case.  was  to bring about such  distribution  of  the agricultural  lands as best to subserve the common good  and this  object was sought to be achieved by fixing ceiling  on areas of holdings. It, however, does not follow that  fixing ceiling  area  of land which can be held by a  person  is  a basic  and essential requirement of land reform.  Since  the challenge against the Maharashtra Act was being directed  to the provisions fixing ceiling it became necessary to consid- er and decide the effect of those provisions pointedly.  But on  a  careful consideration of the entire  judgment,  there does  not remain any element of doubt that a proper  statute even  without including provisions regarding ceiling may  be entitled  to  the protection of Article 31A provided  it  is otherwise a measure of agrarian reform. As mentioned  earli- er,  the Court was deciding the question  of  constitutional validity  of the 1956 Act which amended the  Bombay  Tenancy and  Agricultural  Lands Act enacted in 1948.  The  original 1948  Act  did not contain the provisions of  ceiling  which were  later  introduced by the impugned  amendment.  If  the stand of the respondents be assumed to be correct, the  1948 Act  could  not have been in absence of  the  provisions  of ceiling, held to be a step in agrarian reform. But the Court at page 492 stated that: 506 "The 1948 Act had been passed by the State Legislature as  a measure of agrarian reform  ....  " With respect to the 1956 Amendment Act, it was said at  page 493 that,          "With a view to achieve the objective of establish- ing a socialistic pattern of society in the state within the meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, a further measure of agrarian reform was enacted by the State Legisla- ture,  being  the impugned Act,  hereinbefore  referred  to, which  was designed to bring about such distribution of  the ownership  and  control  of agricultural lands  as  best  to subserve the common goods thus eliminating concentration  of wealth  and  means of production to the  common  detriment." (emphasis added) The  use  of the expression "further measure’  as  mentioned above  and  the repetition of the said expression  again  at page 495 emphasise the fact that the original Act also was a measure  of agrarian reform. Thus the decision,  instead  of helping  the  respondents lends support to  the  appellants’ argument.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

   11.  Mr. R.F. Nariman cited a number of other  decisions dealing  with the validity of provisions fixing ceiling  and the  Court upheld those provisions on the ground  that  they were  measures of agrarian reform, but they do  not  support the  reverse  proposition as put forward on  behalf  of  the respondents.  All  these decisions are,  therefore,  clearly distinguishable  and  we will mention briefly some  of  them which were heavily relied on by Mr. Nariman.     12.  In the case of Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must.  Mazi- runnessa, [1962] 1 SCR 724, writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling  on Land Holding Act, 1957. The High Court  in  dis- missing  the petitions held that the impugned Act  was  pro- tected  by Article 31A as it was a measure of  agrarian  re- forms  and imposed limits on lands to be held by persons  in order  to bring about its equitable distribution.  The  main question  which was canvassed before this Court was  whether the expression "the rights in relation to an estate" in  the Article could cover the impugned Act, and it was answered in the affirmative by holding that the said expression is of  a very wide amplitude. At page 729 this Court observed thus: 507 "This  Article has been construed by this Court  on  several occasions  in dealing with legislative measures of  agrarian reforms. The object of such reforms generally is to  abolish the intermediaries between the State and the cultivator  and to  help the actual cultivator by giving him the  status  of direct relationship between himself and the State." The 5th Amendment Act impugned in the cases before us satis- fies  this test. Similar was the position  in  Purushothaman Nambudiri  y. The state of Kerala, [1962] Supp. 1  SCR  753. The case of Fida Ali and Others v. State of Jammu and  Kash- mir,  [1975] 1 SCR 340, was also considering a statute  pro- viding  a scheme for agrarian reform which  included  provi- sions  in  respect of ceiling. While upholding the  Act  the provisions fixing ceiling were upheld but the other observa- tions in the judgment clearly indicate that the same  cannot be assumed to be a condition precedent. Personal cultivation by the holder of land was emphasised as an important  aspect in the following words at page 345G:           "The  golden web, throughout the warp and woof  of the Act, is the feature of personal cultivation of the land. The  expression  ’personal cultivation’ which  runs  through sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is defined with care under section 2(7)  in a detailed manner with a proviso and  six  explana- tions.           From  a review of the foregoing provisions  it  is obvious that the Act contains a clear programme of  agrarian reforms intaking stock of the land in the State which is not in  personal  cultivation (section 3) and  which  though  in personal  cultivation  is  in excess  of  the  ceiling  area (section 4)." In  the  ultimate paragraph of the judgment it  was  pointed that  for  framing a scheme for agrarian reforms it  is  not necessary  or feasible to follow a set pattern in  different parts of the country. It was observed,           "On the other hand, the predominant object  under- lying the provisions of the Act is agrarian reforms.  Agrar- ian reforms naturally cannot take the same pattern  through- out  the country. Besides the availability of land  for  the purpose,  limited  in  scope in the nature  of  things,  the scheme has to fit in with the local conditions,  variability of  climate, rainfall, peculiarity of  terrain,  suitability and  profitability of multiple crop patterns,  vulnerability of floods and so

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

508 many  other  factors  in formulating a  scheme  of  agrarian reforms suitable to a particular State". The decision, therefore, indicates that a flexible  approach has  to be adopted in deciding as to the nature of  agrarian reform to be taken, rather than laying down a strait  jacket rule  for universal application. The observations in  Datta- traya Govind Mahajan and Others v. State of Maharashtra  and Another, [1977] 2 SCR 790, were also made while examining an Act  fixing ceiling of holdings and in justification of  the impugned provisions it was observed that the policy in  this regard was initiated following the report of the Agricultur- al Labour Inquiry conducted in the 1960s and in  implementa- tion of this policy the Act under consideration was  passed. The  implication  is that the fixation of  ceiling  was  not essentially  involved  in agrarian reform but it had  to  be resorted  to in the State of Maharashtra following the  con- clusion arrived at in the Agricultural Labour Inquiry.     13. The learned counsel for the respondents also  placed two  cases wherein Article 31A was held to be  inapplicable. In  K.K. Kochuni and Others v. The State of Madras and  Oth- ers, [1960] 3 SCR 887, the question of Article 31A did arise but in absolutely different context. The immediate predeces- sor  of the petitioner K.K. Kochini was the sthanee  of  the properties  attached to the various sthanee held by him.  On his  death in 1925, the petitioner being the  senior  member became the sthanee and the respondents No. 2 to 17 being the junior members of the tarwad did not get any interest in the properties.  In  an earlier litigation which  was  commenced following  the passing of an Act in 1932,  the  petitioners’ exclusive  right  was established up to  the  Privy  Council stage.  It  was held that the Members of the tarwad  had  no interest  therein. After the title of the sthanee  was  thus established, the Madras Legislature passed the impugned  Act in  1955, which declared that every sthanam satisfying  cer- tain  conditions  mentioned in the Act would be  deemed  and would  always be deemed to have properties belonging to  the tarwad.  The petitioner K.K. Kochuni challenged the  Act  as ultra vires before this Court by an application under  Arti- cle  32 of the Constitution. Two other petitions  were  also filed, one by his wife and daughters with respect to certain other properties gifted to them and the other by his son. In support  of  the constitutional validity of the Act  it  was argued  on behalf of the respondents that  the  petitioner’s sthanam was an estate within the meaning of Article 31A and, therefore,  enjoyed the protection under that  Article.  The argument  was that a law relating inter se the rights "of  a proprietor  in  his  estate and the junior  members  of  his family was also covered by the wide 509 pharseology used in clause (2)(b) of Article 31A. This Court rejected the plea, holding that: "The definition of "estate" refers to an existing law relat- ing to land tenures in a particular area indicating  thereby that  the  Article is concerned only with  the  land  tenure described  as an "estate". The inclusive definition  of  the rights  of such an estate also enumerates the rights  vested in  the proprietor and his subordinate  tenure-holders.  The last clause in that definition, viz., that those rights also include the rights or privileges in respect of land revenue, emphasizes the fact that the Article is concerned with  land tenure.  It  is, therefore, manifest that the  said  Article deals  with  a tenure called "estate" and provides  for  its acquisition  or  the extinguishment or modification  of  the rights  of the land-holders or the various subordinate  ten-

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

ure-holders  in respect of their rights in relation  to  the estate. The contrary view would enable the State to divest a proprietor  of  his estate and vest it  in  another  without reference  to any agrarian reform. It would also enable  the state  to  compel  a proprietor to  divide  his  properties, though  self-acquired, between himself and other members  of his  family or create interest therein in favour of  persons other than tenants who had none before." The Court, thus held that Article 31A (1)(a) will not  apply to an Act which does not contemplate or see to regulate  the fights  inter se between the landlords and  tenants  leaving all their characteristics intact. The Court further  consid- ered  the judgment in Sri Ram Ram Narain’s case (supra)  and distinguished  it  on the ground that under the  Bombay  Act certain  fights were conferred on the tenants in respect  of their  tenements which they did not have before.  The  other case of San jeer Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Another, [1983] 1 SCR 1000, relied upon by Mr. Nariman  is  also of no help as the same  was  dealing  with certain  legislation  in regard to mines and  minerals.  The question  of interpreting Article 31A (1)(a) did  not  arise there at all.     14.  As has been discussed above. the title to the  land shall  vest  in the tiller and the landlord  shall  get  the compensation. Earlier also his right to resume the land  for personal  cultivation  was considerably  restricted  by  the provisions  of  the 1964 Act. As a result  of  the  impugned Amendment Act he has been divested of this limited right 510 for a price, and the tiller shall no more be under a  threat of dispossession. The impugned provisions must therefore  be accepted as a measure of land reform. We reject the argument of  the  respondents that in absence  of  provisions  fixing ceiling on the area of land which can be held by a person  a statute cannot be accepted as a measure of land reform.  The 5th Amendment Act is, therefore, entitled to the  protection of  Article 3 IA and it cannot be struck down on the  ground of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.  The judgment  of the Judicial Commissioner declaring the Act  as ultra vires is accordingly set aside and the writ  petitions filed  by the respondents are dismissed. Consequently it  is not  necessary to deal with the writ petition (W.P. No.  864 of  1988) filed in this Court under Article  32  challenging the inclusion of the impugned Act in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution and the same is rejected.     15.  In the result, Civil Appeals No. 1314-1318 of  1979 are  allowed,  but, in the circumstances,  the  parties  are directed to bear their own costs throughout. R.S.S.                  Appeals allowed Petition dismissed. 511