SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th April, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. (in C. A. No. 235/ 60) and Mst. Mazirunnessa (in C. A. No. 236/ 60), Appellants
Versus
Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Kamrup and Others, Respondent s (in both the appeals).
Civil Appeals Nos. 235 and 236 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s Amjad Ali and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1960); Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1960) ; Mr. S. M. Lahiri, Advocate General, Assam (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Respondents (in both the Appeals).
LAND REFORM - ASSAM FIXATION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1957 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ACT PROTECTED UNDER ART. 31A - RIGHTS OF APPELLANTS CONSTITUTE RIGHTS IN RELATION TO AN ESTATE - ACT NOT A COLOURABLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged the validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act I of 1957 (the Act), arguing that it violated Arts. 14, 19(1)(f), and 31(2) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Act was protected under Art. 31A.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was protected under Art. 31A of the Constitution, as it was a law providing for the acquisition of an estate by the State and the extinguishment or modification of rights therein. The Court also held that the rights of the appellants, which were taken away or abridged by the Act, constituted rights in relation to an estate as defined by Art. 31A(2)(b). The Court further held that the Act was not a colourable piece of legislation, as its main object was to abolish intermediaries and leave the lands either with the tiller or the cultivator.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act is protected under Art. 31A of the Constitution. 2. Whether the rights of the appellants constitute rights in relation to an estate as defined by Art. 31A(2)(b). 3. Whether the Act is a colourable piece of legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is protected under Art. 31A of the Constitution, as it is a law providing for the acquisition of an estate by the State and the extinguishment or modification of rights therein. 2. The rights of the appellants, which were taken away or abridged by the Act, constitute rights in relation to an estate as defined by Art. 31A(2)(b). 3. The Act is not a colourable piece of legislation, as its main object is to abolish intermediaries and leave the lands either with the tiller or the cultivator.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : These two appears arise out of two writ petitions Nos. 138 and 139 of 1958 filed respectively by the two appellants, Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd., of 15-D Sambhunath Pandi Street, Calcutta-9, and Musst. Mazirunnessa, wife of Abdul Gafur of Village Bhoknamari, District Kamrup, in which they challenged the validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act I of 1957 (hereafter called the Act). The said writ petitions have been dismissed by the Assam High Court substantially on the ground that since the impugned Act falls within the protection of Art. 31A the challenge made by the two appellants to the several provisions of the Act under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 (2) cannot be entertained. Having dismissed the writ petitions principally on this ground the High Court granted certificates to both the appellants to come to this Court in appeal, and so it is with the said certificates that the two appeals have been brought to this Court.
2. It is not necessary to set out the material facts leading to the two writ petitions in any detail. It would be enough to say that under S. 5 of the impugned Act notices had been served on both the appellants by the respondent Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Kamrup calling upon them to submit a return giving the particulars of all their lands in the prescribed form and stating therein their selection of plots of land (not exceeding in the aggregate the limits fixed under S. 4) which they desired to retain under the provisions of the Act. The appellants contended before the High Court that the impugned Act under which this notice had been served on them was invalid and ultra vires and so they wanted the notice issued under S. 5 to be quashed. That is the only relevant fact which needs to be stated for deciding the present appeals.
3. The Act received the assent of the President on December 7, 1956, and was published in the official State Gazette on January 16, 1957. Subsequently it was amended by the amending Act XVII of 1957 and assent was obtained to the amendment thus made on November 8, 1957. By a notification issued by the State Government on February 7,1958, the amended Act came into force on February 15, 1958.
4. It is relevant to consider briefly the broad features of the Act. It has been passed because the Legislature deemed it necessary to make provision for the imposition of limits on the amount of land that may be held by a person in order to bring about an equitable distribution of land. That being the object of the Act the principal provision of the Act imposes a ceiling on existing holding by S. 4. The Act extends to the seven Districts specified in S. 1. (2), and from its operation are excepted the lands specified in cls. (a) to (e) of S.2. These clauses refer to lands belonging to any religious or charitable institution of a public nature, lands held for special cultivation of tea or purposes ancillary thereto and lands exceeding 150 beghas utilised for large scale cultivation of citrus in a compact block by any person before January 1, 1955, lands utilised by efficiently managed farms on which heavy investments or permanent structural improvements have been made and whose break up is likely to lead to a fall in production, and lands held by a sugar factory or a co-operative farming society for cultivation of sugarcane for the purpose of such factory. It would thus be noticed that the measure of agrarian reform introduced by the Act has made exceptions in regard to lands which it thought should be left out of the operation of the Act in the interest of the economy of the State. Section 3 is the definition section. It defines land as meaning land which is or may be utilised for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes the sites of building appurtenant to such land. Under S. 3 (g) the word landholder has the meaning assigned to it in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation 1 of 1886). Landlord under S. 3
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.