Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG, P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Dattatraya Govind Mahajan and others etc., Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.
(1) Civil Appeals Nos. 1132-1164 of 1976 :
(2) Civil Appeal No. 1307 of 1976 :
State of U.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Rajesh Pachauri, Respondent.
(3) Civil Appeals Nos. 1040 and 1220-1248 of 1976 :
(4) Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3023-3027 etc. etc., 1976 :
Nagaorao Marotrao Ingole and others, etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1132-1164, 1307, 1040 and 1220-1248 of 1976; Special Leave Petn. (Civil) Nos. 3023-3027, etc. etc., of 1976,
D/- 27-1-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, in (C. As. 1132 & 1147), Mr. S. N. Khardekar, Sr. Advocate in (C. As. 1132 & 1133) M/s. Vallabh Das Mohta, in (C. A. 1156/76), Dr. N. M. Ghatate, S. Balakrishnan and A. N. Bapat in (C. As. 1132 & 1147), Advocates with them, for Appellants in C. As.1132-1136, 1147 & 1150-64, Mr. S. B. Wad & Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Advocates, for Appellants in C. As. 1137-1146, 1148-49; Mr. Niren De, Attorney General in C. As. 1132 & 1137), M/s. M. M. Kazi and M. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him, for the Respondents; Mr. Niren De, Attorney General, Mr. R. N. Sachthey, for the Attorney General in C. As. 1132, 1307 & 1040; M/s. Shankar Balaji Jagtap, Madan Lal Fakir Chand Dudheida and Chandrabhan Roopchand Dakale (in C. A. 1132); Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdhary Advocate, for Interveners, Mr. L. N. Sinha, Sol. General, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for the Appellants in C. A. No. 1307 of 1976, Mr. S. Markendaya, Advocate, for the Respondents.
In Civil Appeals Nos. 1040/75 and 1220/1248 of 1976, Mr. L. N. Sinha, Sol. General, (Mr. J. S. Wasu, Advocate General, Punjab), (Mr. O. P. Sharma, Mrs. N. Uppal and Miss Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate with them), for the Appellants; Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, in C. A. 1223, (M/s. K. P. Bhandari, J. B. Dadachanji and D. N. Misra Advocates with him), for the Respondents in C. As. Nos. 1223 & 1225/76; Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, for Mrs. Gita Bhadur, M/s. K. P. Bhandari, J. B. Dadachanji, M. M. Ahuja & D. N. Mishra, Advocates, for Interveners; Mrs. Gita Bhadur, Mr. Brij Bhushan Shinghal, Smt. Lal Amol Kaur, Mrs. Uma Shinghal in C. A. 1220; Mr. K. L. Jagga, Mr. D. D. Sharma, Advocates, Sant Singh in C. As. 1220-48 and 1040; Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for State of Haryana.
For the petitioners in S. L. Ps. (Civil) :-
Mr. Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates, SLPs Nos. 3023-27, 3894 & 4026-27; Mr. S. B. Wad and Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Advs. SLPs. Nos. 3177-97, 3203-13, 3358-59, 3392-3404, 3477-3483, 3661-3663, 3059-60, 3487-88 & 4047/76 & 3199/76; Mr. Vallabh Das Mohta, Dr. N. M. Ghatate and Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advs., SLPs. Nos. 3365-77, 3406-34, 3439-64, 3495-3511, 3516-17, 3519 3529-51, 3645-3660, 3680-95, 3719-82, 3787, 3816, 3843-46, 3853-64, 3867-68 of 1976; M/s. K. B. Rohatgi, M. K. Garg and M. M. Kashyan, Advocates, SLPs. Nos. 3696-3703/76; Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, SLPs. Nos. 3467-3476/76; Mr. V. N. Ganpule, Advocate, SLPs. (Civil) Nos. 3524-27/76; M/s. M. S. Gupta and B.B. Marwal, Advocates, SLPs. (Civil) Nos. 3597-3621/76; Mr. R. A. Gupta, Advocate, SLPs. (Civil) Nos. 3889-93/76; Mrs. S. Bhandare, M/s. M. S. Narasimhan, A. K. Mathur, A. K. Sharma and K. C. Sharma, Advocates, SLPs. (Civil) Nos. 3899-3902/76. 919
Agricultural Lands Act, 1972 - Section 5 - Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 – Constitution of India - Article 31-A - Sale deed – Claim of compensation – Jurisdiction - Moreover it is entirely for legislature to decide what policy to adopt for purpose of restructuring the agrarian system and Court cannot assume role of an economic adviser or censor competent to pronounce upon wisdom of such policy - That would be a matter outside orbit of judicial review being a blend of policy politics and economics expertise and proper function of the Court – Court must accordingly hold that Act does not conflict with second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A and cannot be held to be bad on that account - Whether acquisition of land under personal cultivation as surplus after ignoring sale deed under Section 5 (6) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is volatile of second proviso to Article 31-A (1) of Constitution - Whether ignoring transfer made other than those excepted under proviso to Section 5 (6) of Act both in relation to determination of ceiling and surplus area would amount to acquiring any portion of land under personal cultivation within ceiling limit applicable to a person under ceiling law for time being in force – Held, Learned Attorney General expanded on functional plurality of a proviso and on what is a fundamental right from individuals angle being a limitation on power from the legislative angle. Cases were cited, passages were and text books were relied on - Even self-evident propositions wear perplexingly erudite looks when learned precedents and excerpts from classics play upon them - It is simple enough to say that there may be singular situations where legislative incompetence may exist without a corresponding individual right but in generality of cases it is otherwise. Jurisprudential possibilities apart, in concrete case before us there is a clearly enunciated fundamental right garbed as an exception to an exception or as a proviso carved out of a general saving provision - It needs no subtlety to see that under rubric Right to Property" a skein or rights and limitations on rights has been wound in Articles 31 to 31C. Together they are measure of the fundamental right to property in its macro form and micro notes - So understood scheme is plain - A large right to property protected by law against deprivation, compulsory acquisition only on constitutional conditions, saving a agrarian and some other laws from these constitutional constraints, followed by creation, through a proviso, of an oasis where acquisition can be made only by payment of compensation at or above market value - such is pattern woven by complex of clauses. A great right is created in favor of owners to get compensation at not less than the market value if lands within ceiling limit and in personal cultivation are acquired by the State. This is a fundamental right and is a creature of proviso to Article 31A (1). An independent provision may occasionally incarnate as a humble proviso – Court not therefore, inclined to pursue trial in reading rulings which set out proper officer of a proviso although it is absolutely plain that in context setting and purpose of a provision even a proviso may function as an independent clause – Appeal dismissed
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J. (for himself and on behalf of Ray C. J. Beg and Shinghal JJ.) :- Civil Appeals Nos. 1132-1164 of 1976. This is a group of appeals preferred by certain landholders in the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975), the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act 47 of 1957) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976). The Principal Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature in implementation of the Directive Principles of State Police contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution. It imposed a maximum ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and provided for the acquisition of land held in excess of the ceiling and for the distribution of such excess land to landless and other persons. During the subsequent years, various amendments were made in the Principal Act from time to time and the Principal Act, as amended upto that date, was included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. Thereafter certain further amendments were made in the Principal Act and the amending Acts were also included in the Ninth Schedule as a result of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975. Then came three major amending Acts which, according to the appellants, introduced the vice of unconstitutionality in the Principal Act. Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975 effected radical amendments in the Principal Act by lowering ceiling on agricultural holding and creating an artificial family unit for fixing ceiling on holding of agricultural land. This amending Act was followed by Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 which effected certain further changes in the Principal Act but these are not very material for the purpose of the present appeals. Since these three amending Acts were enacted after the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975, they were included in the Ninth Schedule along with certain other enactments by the Constitution (fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976. The result was that the Principal Act, as amended by all the subsequent amending Acts including Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 was protected against invalidation under Article 31-B.
2. The appellants are landholders in the State of Maharashtra and since and effect of the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Mah. Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 was to expropriate a part of the lands belonging to them, they preferred writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of the Principal Act as amended by these amending Acts on various grounds. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeals to set out the different grounds on which the constitutional challenge was based, since none of these grounds has been pressed before us save one based on contravention of the second proviso to cl. (1) of Article 31A. The only contention that has been urged before us on behalf of the appellants is that the Principal Act, as it stands after its amendment by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 is void, is so far as it creates an artificial family unit and fixes a ceiling on holding of land by such family unit, since it is violative of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A and is not saved by the immunising provision enacted in Art. 31-B. This contention was also urged
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
