SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, A.N. RAY, I.D. DUA AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and another, Petitioners
Versus
The State of T.N., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 373 of 1970 and Civil Appeals Nos. 2211 and 2212 of 1970, and 85 to 91of 1971, D/- 19-4-1972.
AND
Writ Petn. No. 373 of 1970.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2211 and 2212 of 1970 and 85 to 91 of 971.
Nilambur Kovilakam etc. Appellants
Versus
The State of T.N. (In all the Appeals), Respondent.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Chagla, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. K. Jayaram, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners (In W.P. No. 373 of 1970); Mr. M. Natesan, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. Sardar Bahadur Saharya, K. Jayaram and Miss Yougindra Khushalani, Advocates, with him) (In C.A. No. 2211 of 1970) and Mr. M. C. Setalvad, (Mr. K. Jayaram, Advocate with him), (In C.A. No. 2212 of 1970) and Mr. K. Jayaram, Advocate, (In C.As. Nos. 85 to 91 of 1971) 2241 for Appellants; Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General for the State of Tamil Nadu, (M/s. S. Mohan, A.V. Rangam, Miss A. Subhashini and Mr. N. S. Sivan, Advocates, with him), for Respondent (In all the matters).
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14,19,31,31A,32,31(A)(2) and 226 - Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 - Gudalur Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1931- Malabar Tenancy Act – 3(29)(a) - Lease of land for purposes of cultivation - Lease of plantation - Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, received assent of President after it had been enacted by the legislature of State - It was thereafter published in gazette - Act extends to the Gudalur taluk of Nilgiris district and applies to all estates - It is to come into force on such date as State Government may, by notification appoint - This Court stayed the issue of notification and, as such, no notification has so far been issued - Whether in its opinion it is in public interest to terminate rights of plantation lessees – Held, court hold that acquisition of the forests on janmam land is not protected by Article 31-A - It has not been shown to court that if the protection of Article 31-A is taken off, acquisition of forests can otherwise be justified - Court are of the view that the provisions of Section 3 of Act in so far as they relate to transfer of forests in estates in question are violative of Constitution - Even after the Act comes into force, Government would have to apply its mind to the question as to whether in its opinion it is in public interest to terminate rights of the plantation lessees - Till such time as such a notice is given, matter is purely of an academic nature - In case the Government decides not to terminate the lease of the plantation lessees, any discussion in matter would be an exercise in futility - If on the contrary, action is taken by Government under Section 17 in respect of any lease of land for purposes of the cultivation of plantation crop, the aggrieved party can approach the Court for appropriate relief - As a result of the above, court uphold vires of Act, except in one respect - Provisions of Section 3 in so far as they relate to transfer of forests in estates to Government are not protected by Article 31-A and being violative of Constitution are struck down - Appeals and writ petition are disposed of accordingly - Order accordingly.
Judgment
KHANNA, J.:- The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Act No. 24 of 1969), hereinafter referred to as the Act, received the assent of the President on December 6, 1969, after it had been enacted by the legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu. It was thereafter published in the gazette on December 17, 1969. The Act extends to the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiris district and applies to all janmam estates. It is to come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification appoint. This Court stayed the issue of the notification and, as such, no notification has so far been issued.
2. Nine petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India were filed in the Madras High Court challenging the vires of the Act on the ground that it was violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioners was that their lands in the Gudalur taluk were previously janmam estates but subsequently became ryotwari estates, especially after the resettlement of 1926 and, as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to those lands. The Act, it was stated, did not get the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution. One of the above petitions was filed by O Valley Estate Ltd. This petitioner had taken on lease an estate comprising about 2,000 acres of land in the 19th century from the Nilambur Kovilakam who was the proprietor of that land besides some other land. The Company (O Valley Estate Ltd.) has a plantation on the estate and is engaged in cultivation and manufacturing of tea and other plantation products. The Nilambur Kovilakam was the petitioner in another petition.
3. The nine petitions were resisted by the State of Tamil Nadu on the ground that the lands in question were Janmam estates and had retained that character till the passing of the Act. The State of Tamil Nadu also invoked the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution. The nine petitions were dismissed by the Madras High Court by a common judgment given in the petition held by O Valley Estate Ltd. It was held that the lands were janmam estates and had not lost that character. The Act was held to be protected by Article 31A of the Constitution. Civil Appeals Nos.2211 and 2212 of 1970 and Nos. 85 to 91 of 1971 have been filed against the above judgment of the High Court.
4. Writ Petition No. 373 of 1970 has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and its shareholder Dayanand Bansilal Saxena challenging the vires of the Act on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution and is not protected by Article 31A. According to the petitioner, the janmam estates which are now intended to be abolished by the Act had been converted into ryotwari estates. The purpose of the Act, it is further stated, is not to bring about agrarian reform. The petitioner company in this case had taken on lease 170.78 hectares from the Nilambur Kovilakam, the appellant in civil appeal No.2211 of 1970, in the 19th century. Out of the above area, 143.22 hectares is under coffee plantation, while the rest of the land consists of forests and waste land.
5. The writ petition has been resisted by the State of Tamil Nadu and the affidavit of Shri A.S. Venkataraman, Additional Secretary has been filed in opposition to the petition. The respondent has controverted the different grounds taken by the petitioner.
6. Gudalur taluk, it may be stated, comprises 12 villages. The said taluk was originally part of Malabar district which now forms part of Kerala State. O Valley village was transferred to the Nilgiris in 1873 and the other eleven villages were transferred in 1877. Originally the janmis in Malabar were absolute proprietors of the land and did not pay land revenue. After Malabar was annexed by the British in the beginning of the 19th century, the janmis conceded the liabilities to pay land revenue. According to the case set up by the petitioner-appellants,
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras
Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala
relied on : P Vajravelu Mudalier v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras
distinguished : State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Anand Brahma Shah
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.