1. Dispute over whether ghatwali tenures governed by Bengal Regulation XXIX of 1814 are subject to acquisition under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th September, 1960
S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Thakur Manmohan Deo (In C. A. No. 273 of 1955) and Tikaitni Faldani Kumari (In C. A. No. 274 of 1955), Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar and others, In both the appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 273 and 274 of 1955.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. C. Sinha, S. Mustafi and R. R. Biswas, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, Government Advocate for the State of Bihar (M/s. Bajrang Sahai and R. C. Prasad, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
Bajrang Sahai, J.C.SINHA, L.K.JHA, L.N.Sinha, R.C.Prasad, R.R.BISWAS, S.MUSTAFI
Bajrang Sahai, J.C.SINHA, L.K.JHA, L.N.Sinha, R.C.Prasad, R.R.BISWAS, S.MUSTAFI
Headnote:(A) Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 2(q), 2(r), 23(1)(f), 32(4) - Bengal Regulation XXIX of 1814 - Constitution of India - Union List I, Items 1 and 2 - State List II, Item 36 - Interpretation of "tenure" and "tenure-holder" - Where a statute expressly states that the expression "tenure" includes a ghatwali tenure and "tenure-holder" includes a ghatwal, such artificial extension covers all such tenures regardless of whether they fall within the general meaning stated in the substantive part of the definition - Provisions relating to the computation of net income or the manner of payment of compensation do not exclude certain tenures from the ambit of the Act if the definition clauses expressly include them. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Legislative Competence - Pith and substance - Legislation for the transference of ownership of estates falls within the ambit of the State List - Even if certain tenures have quasi-military characteristics, the primary object of land reform legislation is the transfer of estates, and thus it does not relate to the defence of India or the armed forces of the Union. (Para 11)
(C) Special Law vs. General Law - Acquisition of property - A grant of land by the ruling power does not deprive a legislature of its legislative authority - If the subject of a grant is within the competence of a provincial legislature, nothing prevents that legislature from legislating about it unless the Constitution expressly prohibits it - Special regulations governing specific tenures do not stand in the way of the acquisition of such tenures by a subsequent valid law. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, holders of government ghatwali tenures governed by a specific regulation, challenged the application of a land reforms act. They contended that their tenures were not covered by the act's definitions, that the act was outside the state legislature's competence because the tenures were of a quasi-military nature, and that a special regulation protecting such tenures prevented their acquisition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the definition clauses of the act explicitly included ghatwali tenures and ghatwals, making the act applicable to both government and zamindari ghatwalis. It further held that the act's primary purpose was the transfer of estates, placing it within the state's legislative competence, and that prior grants or regulations cannot curtail this sovereign legislative power.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the land reforms act apply to government ghatwali tenures; whether such application exceeds the state's legislative competence; and whether a special regulation prevents the acquisition of such tenures.
Ratio Decidendi: When a statute uses the word "includes" in a definition, it artificially extends the scope of the term to include the specified items regardless of the general meaning. The "pith and substance" test determines legislative competence; since the act's essence is land reform and the transfer of estates, it is valid. A legislative body's competence to legislate on land cannot be curtailed by a prior executive grant or special regulation.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Act applies to government ghatwalis, if such application exceeds state legislative competence, and if special regulations prevent acquisition by general land reform laws. (Para 4 )
3. Express statutory definitions including ghatwali tenures override general meanings; legislative competence is determined by pith and substance; crown grants do not preclude legislative acquisition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 )
4. Artificial statutory definitions extending terms to include specific tenures are binding; land reform legislation falls within state competence regardless of the tenure's historical quasi-military nature. (Para 7 , 11 )
5. How should a statutory definition be interpreted when it uses the word includes to extend a general term to a specific category?
When a statute expressly states that a term includes a specific category, it is an artificial extension. Such definitions must be applied regardless of whether the category fits the general meaning of the term, unless there are compelling reasons to restrict it. (Para 7 )
6. Does the quasi-military nature of a tenure make its acquisition a matter of national defence under the Union List?
No. If the pith and substance of the legislation is the transference of ownership of estates for land reform, it falls within the state's legislative competence, regardless of whether the tenure historically involved quasi-military duties. (Para 11 )
7. Can a special regulation or a Crown grant prevent a state legislature from acquiring land through subsequent legislation?
No. A legislature's authority to legislate on subjects within its competence is not deprived by the fact that the land was previously held under a Crown grant or special regulation. (Para 12 )
8. Does the inapplicability of a specific compensation or deduction clause exclude a tenure from the overall operation of an Act?
No. If a specific clause regarding deductions or the manner of payment does not apply to a certain tenure, it does not mean the tenure is excluded from the Act's primary operation, such as acquisition. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. : These two appeals on a certificate granted by the High Court of Patna are from the judgment and decree of the said High Court dated December 10, 1954. By the said judgment and decree the High Court dismissed two appeals which arose out of two suits, Title Suit No. 42 of 1950 and Title Suit No. 23 of 1952, which were tried together and dismissed with costs by the learned Subordinate Judge of Deoghar.
2. The plaintiffs of those two suits are the appellants before us. One of the appellants Thakur Manmohan Deo was the holder of a ghatwali tenure commonly known as the Rohini ghatwali, situate within the subdivision of Deoghar in the district of the Santal Parganas. The other appellant Tikaitni Faldani Kumari was the holder of the Pathrole ghatwali also situate in the same sub-division. Both these ghatwali tenures were formerly known as Birbhum ghatwalis and were governed by Bengal Regulation XXIX of 1814. In the year 1950 was enacted the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950), hereinafter called the Act. The Act came into force on September 25, 1950. The validity of the Act was challenged in the Patna High Court on grounds of a violation of certain fundamental rights and the High Court held it to be unconstitutional on those grounds. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, was enacted on June 18, 1951, and in appeals from the decision of the Patna High Court this Court held in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh , 1952 SCR 889 at p. 898 that the Act was not unconstitutional or void on the grounds alleged, except with regard to the provisions in S. 4(b) and S. 23(f) thereof. The validity of the Act is, therefore, no longer open to question on those grounds, though in one of the suits out of which these two appeals have arisen, it was contended that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution.
3. The principle issue in the two suits which now survives is issue No. 3 which said : "Do the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, purport to acquire the plaintiff s ghatwalis? If so, are they ultra vires in their application to such ghatwalis?" This issue was decided against the appellants by the learned Subordinate Judge and the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was upheld on appeal by the High Court of Patna in its judgment and decree dated December 10, 1954, from which decision these two appeals have come to us.
4. Three main points have been urged on behalf of the appellants. The first point is one of construction and the appellants contend that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, it does no apply to ghatwali tenures like the Rohini and Pathrole ghatwalis. Secondly, it is contended that if the provisions of the Act apply to the appellants ghatwali tenures, then the State legislature was not competent to enact it, because ghatwali tenures like the Rohini and Pathrole ghatwalis, were of a quasi-military nature and if the Act applies to them, it must be held to relate to items 1 and 2 of the Union (List I) and, therefore, outside the competnece of the State legislature. The third contention is that the Act does not purport to repeal Bengal Regulation XXIX of 1814 and inasmuch as the said Regulation deals with special tenures, the special law enacted with regard to such tenures would not be affected by the general law with regard to land reforms as embodied in the Act. We shall deal with these three contentions in the order in which we have stated them. But before we do so, it is necessary to explain, briefly the nature of these ghatwali tenures.
5. We may quote here some of the provisions of Bengal Regulation XXIX of 1814. The Regulation says in S. 1 that lands held by the class of persons denominated ghatwals in the district of Birbhum form a peculiar tenure to which the provisions of the existing Regulations are not expressly applicable; it then states that according to the former usages and constitution of the country, this class of persons are entitled to
