SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA, P.N. BHAGWATI AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., Appellant
Versus
S. B. Kamble and others, respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 1974, D/7-3-1975.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A. K. Sen, M. C. Bhandare and Anil B. Divan Sr. Advocates, (M/s. D. M, Popat, S. I. Thakore, Advocates and M/s. P. H. Parekh and Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare, Advocate of M/s. Bandare Parekh & Co. Advocates, with them) for Appellant; Mr. Niren De, Attorney General for India, (Mr. M, N. Shroff, Advocate, with him) (for Nos. 1-4) and M/s. J. C. Bhatt & P. R.Mirdul, Sr. Advocates (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate with them) (for No. 5), for Respondents,
principal Act - Section 4 - Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 196- Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 31A and 31B – possession of land - Certificate - Acquisition of Land - Declaration is then notified under Section 21 (2) in official Gazette- According to sub-section (4) of that Section Collector shall after publication of notification under sub-section (2) take in prescribed manner possession of land which is delimited as surplus land- It is further provided that surplus land shall with effect from on which possession there of taken as aforesaid be deemed to be acquired by State Government for purpose of Act and shall accordingly vest free Government- Section 27 makes provision for distribution of surplus land - Section 28 of Act makes provision in respect of land taken over from industrial undertaking to ensure supply of raw material - According to its long title it was an Act to impose a maximum limit (or ceiling) on holding of agricultural land in State of Maharashtra to provide for acquisition and distribution of land held in excess of such ceiling and for matters connected with Purposes aforesaid - Held, A measure which has effect of improving rural economy or promoting rural welfare would be a part of agrarian reform Although in most of cases as already mentioned agrarian reform would require distribution of surplus land among poor peasants and landless persons living in villages situations might well arise where it would be in interest of rural economy that any compact area of land instead of being fragmented by distribution should be preserved as one compact block and be cultivated by a State owned farming corporation fact that part of acquired land would remain vested in State Government or State-owned farming corporation would not militate against object of agrarian reform if continued vesting of land in Government or Corporation is a part of a general of agrarian reform and there is no oblique deviation from avowed purpose - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
KHANNA, J.:- The short question which arises in this appeal filed on certificate by Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. and its two shareholder directors against the judgment of the Bombay High Court is the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961(Maharashtra Act No. 27 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) as amended by Maharashtra Acts Nos. 16 of 1968 33 of 1968, 37 of 1969 and 27 of 1970. The High Court has upheld the validity of the Act on the ground that it is protected by Articles 31A and 31B of the Constitution.
2. The principal Act came into force on January 26, 1962. According to its long title, it was an Act to impose a maximum limit (or ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra to provide for the acquisition and distribution of land held in excess of such ceiling; and for matters connected with the Purposes aforesaid. Section 3 of the Act deals with ceiling on holding of agricultural land. According to that section, in order to provide for the more equitable distribution of agricultural land amongst the peasantry of the State of Maharashtra (and in particular, to provide that landless persons are given land for Personal cultivation) on the commencement of the Act, there shall be imposed to the extent, and in the manner hereinafter provided, a maximum limit (or ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land throughout the State, Section 4 provides, that no person shall hold land in excess of the ceiling area while Section 5 specifies as to what area would constitute ceiling area under each class of land in specified local area. Returns have to be submitted to the Collector in respect of surplus land under Section 12 of the Act. Section 14 gives power to, the Collector to hold an enquiry for determining as to what area in respect of the holding of a person should be declared to be in excess of the ceiling area. On completion of the enquiry if the Collector finds the holding of a person in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector shall make a declaration under Section 21 of the Act about the area, description and full particulars of the land which is delimited as surplus land. The declaration is then notified under Section 21 (2) in the official Gazette. According to sub-section (4) of that Section, the Collector shall after the publication of the notification under sub-section (2) take in the prescribed manner possession of the land which is delimited as surplus land. It is further provided that the surplus land shall with effect from the date on which the possession there of taken as aforesaid be deemed to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the Act and shall accordingly vest free Government. Section 27 makes provision for the distribution of the surplus land. Section 28 of the Act makes provision in respect of land taken over from industrial undertaking to ensure supply of raw material. The Section as it stood before its amendment by Act 33 of 1968 read as under:
"28. (I) Where any land held by an industrial undertaken is acquired by, and vests in the State Government under Section 21, such land being land which was being used for the purpose of producing or providing raw material for the manufacture or production of any goods, articles or commodities by the undertaking, the State Government shall take particular care to ensure that the acquisition of the land does not affect adversely the production and supply of raw material from the land to the undertaking.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 27, but subject to any rules made in this behalf for the purpose of so ensuring the continuance of the supply of such raw material to the undertaking, and generally for the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture and its efficient management, the State Government
(a) may, if it is in the opinion of that Government necessary for the purpose aforesaid (such opinion being formed after considerin
State of Keralav. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.(Wvg) Co. Ltd.
referred to : Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
relied on : K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
followed : Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector
explained and followed : Ramanlal Gulab Chand Shah v. Stab of Gujarat
State of orissa v. Chandra Sekhar Singh Bhoi
Balmadies Plantations Ltd.v.State of T.N.
Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Kh. Fida Ali v. State of J. and K.
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.