1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, regarding consolidation proceedings and compensation for land acquired for public purposes. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 177
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th December 1958
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Attar Singh and others, Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. l19 of 1957,
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate, Mr. J.P. Goyal, Advocate (with Special permission of the Court) (Mr. K. L. Mehta, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, Mr. K. L. Misra, Advocate-General for the State at U. P.; (Mr. Gopi Nath Dixit, Advocate with them), for Respondent
Advocates:
ACHHRU RAM, Gopi Nath Dixit, H.N.SANYAL, J.P.GOYAL, K.L.Mehta, K.L.MISHRA
ACHHRU RAM, Gopi Nath Dixit, H.N.SANYAL, J.P.GOYAL, K.L.Mehta, K.L.MISHRA
Expedited procedures for land consolidation are a permissible classification under Article 14 to achieve agricultural development. Compensation for land acquired for public purposes is adequate if it includes both cash payments and direct benefits derived from the resulting public utilities.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 31(2); Consolidation of Holdings Act - Sections 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 to 22, 29-B and 49 - Challenge to the constitutionality of the Act regarding consolidation of agricultural holdings - Power to cancel declarations - Procedure for correction of records and consolidation schemes - Compensation for land acquired for public purposes.
(B) Article 14 - Discrimination - Power to cancel consolidation declarations - Where a provision granting power to cancel a declaration is severable from the rest of the Act and the petitioners are not affected by its operation, the court may leave the validity of such a provision open for determination in an appropriate case. (Para 7)
(C) Article 14 - Permissible Classification - Difference in procedure for correction of revenue records and confirmation of consolidation proposals between villages under consolidation and those not under consolidation - If the objective of the legislation is to improve agricultural production through an expeditious process, a shorter procedure that adheres to the essentials of natural justice is a permissible classification based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (Paras 9, 10)
(D) Article 31(2) - Adequacy of Compensation - Acquisition of small portions of land for public purposes - Where land is acquired for purposes that directly benefit the tenure-holders (such as schools, pastures, and cremation grounds), the cash compensation provided, when combined with the direct benefits derived from these public utilities and the advantage of receiving a compact block of land, is considered adequate. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of a state act concerning the consolidation of agricultural holdings. They contended that the act granted arbitrary powers to the government to selectively place villages under consolidation, created discriminatory and expedited procedures for the correction of records and confirmation of proposals that deprived them of court protections, and provided inadequate compensation for land acquired for public purposes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the expedited procedure was necessary to ensure the consolidation scheme was implemented within a reasonable period to benefit agriculture and did not violate the right to equality. Regarding compensation, the court observed that the land taken from individuals was a very small fraction and was used for utilities that directly benefited the villagers, making the total compensation adequate.
Issues: Whether the power to cancel consolidation declarations, the expedited procedure for record correction and proposal confirmation, and the bar on civil court jurisdiction were discriminatory under Article 14, and whether the compensation for acquired land was inadequate under Article 31(2).
Ratio Decidendi: A classification is permissible if it is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The need for an expeditious consolidation process to promote agricultural development justifies a departure from ordinary revenue procedures. Compensation for land taken for public purposes is adequate if the tenure-holders receive cash payment and direct benefits from the resulting public utilities.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Allegations that the Act's consolidation procedures and compensation provisions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and inadequate, violating Articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution. (Para 2 )
3. Consolidation promotes agricultural development; expedited procedures are necessary for efficiency and constitute a permissible classification provided natural justice is observed. (Para 3 , 5 , 9 , 10 )
4. Specialized procedures for land consolidation are constitutionally valid if based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of agricultural improvement. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Petition challenging the constitutionality of the Act dismissed with costs. (Para 13 )
6. Does a shorter procedure for correcting revenue records during consolidation violate Article 14?
No. An expedited procedure is necessary for the timely implementation of consolidation. It is a permissible classification based on intelligible differentia if it maintains the essentials of natural justice, such as providing notice, hearing objections, and allowing evidence. (Para 9 )
7. Is the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction and the finality of arbitrator decisions in consolidation schemes constitutional?
Yes. Such provisions are necessary to ensure consolidation schemes are completed within a reasonable time, preventing pending litigation from stalling the process. This provides a rational basis for classification with a nexus to the Act's object. (Para 10 )
8. Is cash compensation for small parcels of land taken for common village purposes considered adequate under Article 31(2)?
Yes, when the land is used for the direct benefit of the tenure-holders and they receive the overall advantage of having their scattered holdings consolidated into a compact block. (Para 12 )
Judgment
K. N. WANCHOO, J. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (U. P. V of 1954). as amended by U. P. Acts, No. XXVI of 1954, No. XIII of 1955, No. XX of 1955, No. XXIV of 1956 and No. XVI of 1957, (hereinafter called the Act). The applicants are four brothers holding land in village Banat, tahsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar. A notification was issued under S. 4 of the Act in respect of 223 villages in tahsil Kairana, declaring that the State Government had decided to make a scheme of consolidation in that area. This was followed up by necessary action under the various provisions of the Act resulting in a statement of proposals under S. 19. Objections to these proposals were filed by the petitioners and others, which were decided in April 1956. The petitioners went in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was decided in August 1957. It was thereafter that the present petition was filed in this Court.
2. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds, of which the following five have been urged before us :-
(1) Section 6 read with S. 4 of the Act given arbitrary powers to the State Government to accord discriminatory treatment to tenure-holders in different villages by placing some villages under consolidation while excluding others, thus offending Art 14 of the Constitution.
(2) Sections 8, 9 and 10 read with S. 49 of the Act provide a procedure for the correction and revision of revenue records for villages under consolidation, which is vitally different from that applicable to villages not under consolidation, and there is thus discrimination which offends Art. 14 of the Constitution :
(3) Sections 14 to 17 read with S.49, canter arbitrary powers on the consolidation authorities under which they can deprive a tenure-holder of his land or rights therein and the tenure-holder has been deprived of the protection of Courts available to other tenure-holders in villages not under consolidation, thus creating discrimination which offends Art. 14 ;
(4) Sections 19 to 22, read with S. 49, again create discrimination on the same grounds as Ss. 14 to 17, and are, therefore, hit by Art. 14 ; and
(5) Section 29-B, which provides for compensation gives inadequate compensation and is, therefore hit by Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution.
3. Before we take these points seriatim, it is useful to refer to the background of this legislation. As far back as 1939, the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act No. VIII of 1989, was passed. It was, however, of little effect, because it could only be applied when more than one-third of the proprietors of the cultivated area of a village applied for an order of consolidation of the village. It was, therefore, felt that some kind o compulsion would be necessary in order to achieve consolidation of holdings in villages. That consolidation would result in improving agricultural production goes without saying and it was with the object of encouraging the development of agriculture that consolidation schemes with a compulsory character were taken up in various States, after the recommendation of The Famine Inquiry Commission 1944, in its Final Report ; (See page 263). The State of Bombay was the first to pass an Act called the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, (Bom. LXII of 1947). This was followed by the impugned Act in Uttar Pradesh. The object of the Act is to allot a compact area in licu of scattered plots to tenure-holders so that large scale cultivation may be possible with all its attendant advantages. Thus, by the reduction of boundary-lines saving of and takes place and the number of boundary disputed is reduced There is saving of in the management of fields inasmuch as the farmer is saved from travelling from field to field, which may be at considerable distances from each other. Proper barriers such as fences, hedges and ditches ca
