1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Bombay Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1958 regarding permanent tenant status. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd December, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Maharana Shri Jayvantsinghji Ranmalsinghji etc., Petitioners
Versus
The State of Gujarat and others (In all the Petitions), Respondents.
Petitions Nos. 120 and 147 to 158 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 120 and 147 of 58); Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate, and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 149 of 58); Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s, Rajinder Narain and Co., for Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 148 and 150 to 158 of 58); Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. N. P. Nathwani, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondents (The State and its officers in all the Petns.); M/s. N. P. Nathwani and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (In Petns. Nos. 120, 148 and 156 of 58) and Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (In Petns. Nos. 147, 149 and 150 of 58).
Legislation that retrospectively redefines a legal status to reduce a vested statutory purchase price violates the right to property. Such an act is colourable if it uses a definition or rule of evidence as a disguise to confiscate property without legislative competence.
Headnote:(A) Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1958 - Sections 3, 4 and 6 - Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 - Section 5A - Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32 and 32H - Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 83 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(5), 31 and 31A - Right to receive purchase price as a property right - Colourable legislation - Retrospective redefinition of "permanent tenant" to reduce compensation - Unreasonable restriction on the right to object. (Paras 14, 16)
(B) Colourable Legislation - A law is colourable when the legislature, while appearing to act within its limits, in substance and reality transgresses those powers, the transgression being veiled by a pretence or disguise. (Para 16)
(C) Property Rights - The right of a landlord to receive a statutory purchase price from a tenant is a right to property protected under Article 19(1)(f). (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Ex-tenure holders were entitled to a purchase price from non-permanent tenants under a tenancy act. A subsequent amendment act provided that tenants in possession for twelve years or more would be deemed permanent tenants unless the tenure holder applied for a declaration to the contrary within six months. This deeming provision effectively converted non-permanent tenants into permanent tenants, thereby reducing the purchase price payable to the tenure holders from a higher range (20 to 200 times the assessment) to a much lower amount (six times the assessment).
Findings of Court:
Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the amendment act are unconstitutional and void. The provisions do not merely change a rule of evidence but create a new class of permanent tenants, thereby depriving tenure holders of a vested property right. The six-month time limit imposed to contest the status is an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(5).
Issues: Whether the amendment act was a piece of colourable legislation that violated fundamental rights by redefining "permanent tenant" to reduce the purchase price payable to landlords, and whether such provisions were saved by Article 31A of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to the purchase price was a property right. By retrospectively deeming non-permanent tenants as permanent tenants, the state effectively reduced the amount owed to the landlords. Since the state did not acquire an estate but merely altered a debt between a creditor and a debtor, Article 31A did not apply. The legislation was colourable as it used the guise of defining a term to achieve an unauthorized reduction in the purchase price.
Result: Petitions allowed with costs; Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the impugned Act held unconstitutional and void.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- land law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege colourable legislation violating Articles 14, 19, and 31; respondents contend the Act merely modifies rules of evidence for determining permanent tenancy. (Para 2 , 8 , 28 , 54 )
3. The Act creates a new class of permanent tenants and imposes an unreasonable time limit for challenges, effectively reducing the purchase price payable to tenure-holders. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
4. Legislation that retrospectively alters tenant status to reduce a vested right to purchase price under the guise of evidence rules is colourable and unconstitutional. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 )
5. Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the impugned Act are declared unconstitutional and void; petitions allowed with costs. (Para 17 , 63 )
6. When is a piece of legislation considered colourable?
Legislation is colourable when a legislature, while appearing to act within its limits of power, in substance and reality transgresses those powers, the transgression being veiled by a mere pretence or disguise. (Para 16 )
7. Does the right to receive a statutory purchase price constitute a property right?
Yes, the right to receive a purchase price under the Tenancy Act is a right to property protected under Article 19(1)(f), as the relationship between the parties changes from landlord-tenant to creditor-debtor. (Para 14 )
8. Is a strict six-month time limit to challenge tenant status a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5)?
No, such a limit is unreasonable if it deprives the tenure-holder of a real opportunity to contest claims, especially when they must anticipate claims for numerous tenants to avoid losing their right to a higher purchase price. (Para 14 )
9. Does Article 31A save legislation that affects the amount of purchase price payable by a tenant to a landlord?
No, Article 31A does not apply if the legislation does not provide for the acquisition of an estate or the extinguishment/modification of rights therein, but merely affects the right of a creditor to receive money. (Para 15 )
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. (for self and B. P. Sinha, C.J.I.) : In these 13 writ petitions arises a common question of law, namely, the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Bombay Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Bombay Act LVII of 1958) and in particular, of the provisions contained in Ss. 3 and 4 read with S. 6 thereof. We shall hereinafter refer to this Act as the impugned Act, 1958.
2. Put very briefly, the case of the petitioners is that as a result of the provisions of the impugned Act, 1958, certain non-permanent tenants were deemed to be permanent tenants as from the commencement of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXII of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949 and thereby became entitled to acquire on payment of six times the assessment or six times the rent instead of at least the minimum of twenty times the assessment, the rights of an "occupant" within the meaning of S. 5A of the Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949. This result, it is contended, has substantially deprived the petitioners of the rights which they acquired on tillers day (April 1, 1957) by reason of the provisions contained in S. 32 and other relevant sections of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948) as amended from time to time. It is stated that this deprivation has resulted in the violation of certain fundamental rights of the petitioners, such as those guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. On behalf of the Petitioners it has also been contended that apart from the question of violation of their fundamental rights, the impugned Act, 1958 is a piece of colourable legislation in the sense that under the guise of changing a rule of evidence, it has in effect taken away the petitioners property without payment of compensation and given it to another; it is, therefore, a piece of legislation which does not come within any entry of the two legislative lists under which the State Legislature was competent to make laws.
3. To appreciate the point urged in support of the petitions which have all been heard together, it will be necessary to consider the effect and inter-action on some of the provisions of four principal Acts, namely, (1) the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 Bombay Act V of 1879), hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Code; (2) the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended from time to time, hereinafter called the Tenancy Act, 1948; (3) the Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949; and (4) the impugned Act, 1958. We shall presently read the relevant provisions of these Acts. But before we do so, it is necessary to state some facts. The facts are similar, though not the same, in all the petitions. It will be sufficient to state the facts of one of the Petitions (Petition No. 120 of 1958) in detail in order to focus attention on the main question of law which is the same in all these petitions and which we have indicated briefly in the preceding paragraph.
4. The petitioners are all ex-Taluqdars. In Petition No. 120 of 1958 the petitioner was a Taluqdar of two estates known as Sanad and Koth in the Ahmedabad district of the then State of Bombay and now of the State of Gujarat. These two estates comprised 24 taluqdari villages. The petitioner was the absolute proprietor of all the lands comprised in the two estates, subject to payment of land revenue to the State Government. Under the petitioner there were tenants-it is stated, some permanent and some non-permanent. In the year 1949, the Bombay Provincial Legislature enacted the Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949 which came into force on August 15, 1950. As a result of the provisions of that Act, the taluqdari tenure as such was abolished and certain properties, such as, wells, tanks, waste lands, uncultivated lands, etc., were acquired by the State; and the Taluqdar was converted into a mere "occupant as defined in the Revenue Code and was to pay land
