Ram Ram Narain Medhi vs State Of Bombay

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1953 Supreme(SC) 109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th November, 1953
S.R. DAS C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO JJ.
1. Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi (in Petn. No, 13/57); 2. Bhaskar Vinayak Tendulkar (in Petn. No. 38/57); 3. Pandurang Ganpat Rai (in Petn. No. 39/.57); 4. Ramchandra Raghunath Rao (in Petn: No. 40/57 ); 460 5. Laxman Balwant Oak (in Petn. No. 41/57); 6. Kuberdas Hargovinddas (in Petn. No. 55/58), Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bombay, Respondent.
Petns. Nos. 13 and 38-41 of 1957 and 55 of 1958.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. V. M. Limaye and S. S. Shukla, Advocates for Petitioners, (in Petns. Nos. 13, 38-41/57); Mr. Purushottam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him), for Petitioner; (in Petn. No. 55/ 58); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India (M/s. H. J. Umriga; K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.

Headnote:
The impugned Act, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bom. XIII of 1956) was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, was a piece of colourable legislation and suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. The Court held that the Act was covered by Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and was a legislation with reference to "land" and this plea of legislative incompetence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Act therefore fails. The Court further held that the impugned Act is protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution and is protected from attack against its constitutionality on the score of its having violated the fundamental rights, enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the impugned Act being within the legislative competence of the State Legislature no question as to its being a piece of colourable legislation can arise. The Court also held that S. 7 of the impugned Act is not bad by reason of excessive delegation of legislative power.
Fact of the Case:

The impugned Act, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bom. XIII of 1956) was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, was a piece of colourable legislation and suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Act was covered by Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and was a legislation with reference to "land" and this plea of legislative incompetence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Act therefore fails. The Court further held that the impugned Act is protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution and is protected from attack against its constitutionality on the score of its having violated the fundamental rights, enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the impugned Act being within the legislative competence of the State Legislature no question as to its being a piece of colourable legislation can arise. The Court also held that S. 7 of the impugned Act is not bad by reason of excessive delegation of legislative power.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature? 2. Whether the impugned Act violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the impugned Act was a piece of colourable legislation? 4. Whether the impugned Act suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned Act was covered by Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and was a legislation with reference to "land" and this plea of legislative incompetence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Act therefore fails. 2. The impugned Act is protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution and is protected from attack against its constitutionality on the score of its having violated the fundamental rights, enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 3. The impugned Act being within the legislative competence of the State Legislature no question as to its being a piece of colourable legislation can arise. 4. S. 7 of the impugned Act is not bad by reason of excessive delegation of legislative power.
Final Decision: Petitions dismissed.

Judgement

N. H. BHAGWATI, J. : These six petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenge the vires of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bom. XIII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Act"). It was an Act further to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter called the "1948 Act". )

2. The petitioners are citizens of India and landholders within the meaning of the 1948 Act holding several acres of land within the State of Bombay out of which a few acres are under their own cultivation, the bulk of the lands being under the cultivation of tenants-except in the case of the petitioners in petition No. 58 of 1958 where the whole of the lands are under the cultivation of tenants.

3. The 1948 Act had been passed by the State Legislature as a measure of agrarian reform on 28th December 1948, with a view to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands and the objectives sought to be achieved were thus set out in the second paragraph of the preamble : -

"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 suffered, or for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purposes, it is expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provisions for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing.....,... ..............."

4. Section 2 (8) of the said Act defined "land" to mean :

(a) and which is used for agricultural purposes, and includes -

(a) the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to such land; and used for agricultural purposes, and

(b) ...... .............. ..........,....... .....,...........

(i) the sites of dwelling houses occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers or artisans and land appurtenant to such dwelling houses."

(ii) ...........................................................

5. "Landholder" was defined in S. 2 (9) of the said Act to mean :-

"a zamindar, jagirdar, saranjandar, 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 the value of the land or his interests therein to be a landholder for the purposes of this Act."

6. Under S. 2 (21) of the said Act the words, and expressions used in the Act but not defined were to have the meaning assigned to them in Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the case may be.

7. With a view to achieve the objective of establishing 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 Legislature 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 sub-serve the common good thus eliminating concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. The said Act received the assent of the President on March 16, 1956, was published in the Bombay Government Gazette on March 29, 1956 and came into force throughout the State on August 1, 1956.

8. In about November,1956, certain landholders from Kolhapur and Sholapur districts in State of Bombay filed petitions in the Bombay High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the impugned Act on various grounds. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pronounced its judgment on 21st Febr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document