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