Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I, : These appeals come before us on a reference by the Constitution Bench referring the question -whether the amendment of Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by Section 35 (1) of the Bombay Act XIII of 1956, which added the words:

"or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his control."

has the protection of Articles 31A and 31-B of the Constitution, At the hearing of this reference before this Special Bench (which included judges of the original Constitution Bench) it was decided to enlarge the reference to include the whole appeals so that they might he decided in their entirety at the same sitting.

2. These are appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat, 4/5 May, 1966 from many petitions questioning the declaration made by the Deputy Collector, Bulsar under Section 65 of the Act. Below is given the text of the section with the amended portion material to these appeals underlined (bracketed herein, Ed.). As a result of the declaration the appellants stand to lose possession of their lands. The facts on which the several declarations have come to be made may now be stated.

3. The appellants own and possess lands in the district of Bulsar and claim to carry on agricultural operation by raising and cutting grass used as fodder. They were served with notices under Section 65 of the Act. A sample notice is Annexure B to tile petition of Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah in the High Court. It was issued from the office of the Deputy Collector on February 5, 1966 addressed to Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah. It read as follows:-

" ........ .........

........ .........

This is to inform you that during the inquiry made by us it has been found that you are holding the following grass land together with the others:-

On making inquiry it has been found that on account of your fault (not) beyond your control you have allowed to grow the grass naturally in the aforesaid land of your possession continuously for two years namely 1963-64 and 1964-65 and in two years prior to that kept the said land uncultivated. That you have not made full and efficient use of the said land for the purpose of agriculture.

Therefore, I Shri M. B. Shaikh, Dist. Deputy Collector, Bulsar, in view of the authority vested in me under Section 65 of the Tenancy Act, have to inform you and call upon you to show cause as to why the management of the aforesaid land or a portion thereof should not be assumed by the Government under Section 65 of the Tenancy Act.

..................

.................

65. Assumption of management of lands which remained uncultivated.

(1) If it appears to the State Government that for any two consecutive years, any land has remained uncultivated (or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his control) the State Government may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, declare that the management of such land shall be assumed. The declaration so made shall be conclusive.

(2) On the assumption of the management, such land shall vest in the State Government during the continuance of the management and the provisions of Chapter IV shall mutatis mutandis apply to the said land:

Provided that the manager may in suitable cases give such land on lease at rent even equal to the amount of its assessment.

Provided further that, if the management of the land has been assumed under sub-section (1) on account of the default of the tenant, such tenant shall cease to have any right or privilege under Chapter II or III, as the case may be, in respect of such land, with effect from the date on and from which such management has been assumed."

4. In consequence of the notice the parties appeared and denied the allegation that for two consecutive years they