SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Gulabbhai Vallabbhai Desai and others, Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 148, 149, 233 and 238 of 1962, and 216 of 1963, D/- 27-9-1966.
Cases Referred : Chronological Paras
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. J. Joshi, B. Dutta and Dalip M. Desai, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachandji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachandji and Co., with him), for Petitioner in W. P. No. 148 of 1962.
Mr. Purshottam Trikumdas, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. J. Joshi, B. Dutta and Dalip M. Desai, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachandji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachandji and Co., with him), for Petitioner in W. P. No. 149 of 1962.
M/s. R. J. Joshi and B. Dutta, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachandji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachandji, and Co., for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 233 and 238 of 1962.
Mr. Purshottam Trikumdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and 1111 Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Petitioners in W. P. No. 216 of 1963.
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate. (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with them), for Respondent No. 1 in all the Petitions.
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 148, 149, 233 and 238 of 1962 and 216 of 1963. They raise a common question about the validity of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962, (No. VII of 1962). We shall refer to this Regulation as "the Regulation" in this judgment.
2. By the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962, the First Schedule to the Constitution was amended by including under the heading "The Union Territories after Entry 7, a new Entry which read:
"8. Goa, Daman and Diu.- The territories which immediately before the twentieth day of December 1961, were comprised in Goa, Daman and Diu".
Similarly, in Art. 240 which gives power to the President to make regulations for Union territories the words "Goa, Daman and Diu" were inserted. This followed the annexation of the territories belonging to India which had passed into Portuguese hands. On March 5, 1962 the President promulgated the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance, 1962 to operate from the appointed day, namely, December 20, 1961 providing, among other things, for the continuance of all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. A power to extend laws, with or without modification, and to remove difficulties by an order consistent with the Ordinance was also conferred on the Central Government.
3. In exercise of the powers so conferred the Regulation was enacted. The general scheme of the Regulation follows that of the other Reform Acts abolishing intermediaries in India. In some respects the Regulation makes a special provision in view of the laws in force in the former district of Daman. To these special features we may now refer. The Regulation purports to abolish the proprietorship of villages in Daman District. It defines the "appointed date" as the date on which it came into force and "land" as meaning "every class or category of land" and including "(i) benefits to arise out of such land, and (ii) things attached to earth". It also defines "proprietor" to mean "a person who holds any village or villages granted to him or any of his predecessors-in-interest by the former Portuguese Government by way of gift, sale or otherwise" and includes his co-sharers. "Cultivation" is defined as the use of lands for the purpose of agriculture or horticulture. It further defines the phrase "to cultivate personally" as meaning "to cultivate on one s own account" specifying in how many different ways a person could be said so to do, and a "cultivating tenant" as a person who cultivates personally any land belonging to another under an agreement, express or implied, and pays rent therefor in cash or kind or derives a share of the profit. By S. 3, the proprietary rights, title and interest of every proprietor in or in respect of all lands in his village or villages were extinguished and vested in the Government, free from all encumbrances etc., any contract, grant or document or any law for the time being in force to the contrary, notwithstanding. Section 4, however, saved, subject to other provisions, to the proprietor his homestead, buildings, structures together with land appurtenant thereto in the occupation of the proprietor and also lands under his personal cultivation, not being pastures or grass lands. By S. 7, cultivating tenants who had been evicted from any land after the 1st April, 1954, were restored to possession if the proprietor was personally cultivating those lands on December 20, 1961 provided an application was made in that behalf on or before December 31, 1962. After the appointed day all proprietors became occupants of the land. So also the cultivating tenants. Compensation was payable to the proprietors whose rights, title and interest in respect of their lands vested in Government and it was stated to be 20 times the annual payment (Contribuicao
Referred : Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
P. Varjavelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras
N. B. Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana
Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe v. State of Bombay
Supdt. central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram anohar Lohia
K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medbi v. State of Bombay
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India
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.