SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th March, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
1. A. P. Krishnaswami Naidu (In W. P. No. 1 of 1963) 2. R. Muthuswami Gounder (In W. P. No. 7 of 1963) 3. K. Kandi Gounder (In W. P. No. 8 of 1963) 4. S. T. A. K. Paravathammal (In W. P. No. 10 of 1963) 5.
Versus
Guruviah Naidu (In W. P. No. 53 of 1963) 6. K. Rajagopal (In W. P. No. 76 of 1963), Petitioners v. The State of Madras (In all the Petitions), Respondent.
Writ Petn. Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10, 53 and 76 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. V. S. Mani and K. R. Sarma, Advocates, for Petitioner (In W. P. Nos. 1 and 76 of 1963); M/s. R. V. S. Mani and T. R. V. Sastri, Advocates, for Petitioner (In W. P. Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 53); Mr. A. V. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him), for Respondent (In all the Petitions); Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Interveners Nos. 1 and 5 (In all the Petitions); M/s. M. C. Setalvad and N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocates, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Intervener No. 2. (In W. P. No. 1 of 1963); Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, for Intervener No. 3 (In W. P. No. 1 of 1963); Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, for Intervener No. 4 (In W. P. No. 1 of 1963); Mr. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General of India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Intervener No. 6 (In W. P. No. 1 of 1963).
Judgement
WANCHOO, J. : These six petitions under Art. 32 of Constitution raise a common question about the constitutionality of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, No 58 of 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was assented to by the President on April 13, 1962 and came into force on publication in the Fort St. George Gazette on May 2, 1962. The constitutionality of the Act is attacked on the ground that it violates Arts. 14, 19 and 31 (2) of the Constitution. It is not necessary to set out in full the attack made on the constitutionality of the Act in these petitions. It will be enough if we indicate the two main attacks on the constitutionality of the Act under Art. 14. The first of these is with respect to S. 5 of the Act which lays down the ceiling area. The second is on S. 50 of the Act read with Sch. III thereof, which provides for compensation. It is urged that the Act is not protected under Art. 31-A of the Constitution and is therefore open to attack in case it violates Arts. 14, 19 or 31. The petitioners in this connection rely on the judgment of this Court in K. Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 829.
2. Before we consider the two main attacks on the constitutionality of the Act we may briefly indicate the Scheme of the Act. Chapter I is preliminary, S. 3 thereof provides for various definitions, some of which we shall refer to later. Chapter II deals with fixation of ceiling on land holdings. Section 5 thereof fixes the ceiling area. The other sections provide for determining surplus land and S. 18 provides for the acquisition of surplus land which vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. Chapter III provides for ceiling on future acquisition and restriction on certain transfers. Chapter IV provides for the constitution and functions of the land board Chapter V provides for the constitution and functions of the sugar factory board. Chapter VI provides for compensation. Section 50 thereof read with Sch. III lays down the mode for determining compensation for the land acquired by the Government and other ancillary matters. Chapter VII provides for survey and settlement of lands in the transferred territory which came to the State of Madras by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. Chapter VIII provides for cultivating tenants ceiling area. Chapter IX provides for exemption of certain land from the application of the Act. Chapter X provides for land tribunals and Chapter XI for appeals and revision. Chapter XII provides for certain penalties and procedure while Chapter XIII provides for disposal of land acquired by the Government under the Act. Chapter XIV deals with miscellaneous provisions, including S. 110, which provides for the framing of rules.
3. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for a ceiling on land holdings, for determining surplus land which would be acquired by Government and for payment of compensation therefor. The Act is applicable to agricultural land as defined in S. 3(22) and is mainly concerned with persons holding lands in ryotwari settlement or in any other way subject to payment of revenue direct to the Government. It is not in dispute that the Act is not protected under Art. 31-A of the Constitution and it is in this background that we shall consider the attack based on Art. 14 on the two main provisions of the Act relating to ceiling area under S. 5 and compensation under S. 50 read with Sch. III of the Act.
4. It is first necessary to read certain definitions in S. 3. Section 3(14) defines family as follows :-
" family in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband as the case may be, of such person and his or her-
(i) minor sons and unmarried daughters; and
(ii) minor grandsons and unmarried grand-daughters in the male line, whose father and mother are dead."
It is unnecessary to refer to the explanation of S. 3(14) for present purposes. Section 3(34) is in these terms :-
" person includes any trust com
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.