IMPORTANT POINT
The amended Ceiling Act applies to “bid lands”.

Headnote:(a) Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Amendment Act 2 of 1974 – Validity – Challenge to validity given up after Coelho case. (Para 3)
        (2007) 2 SCC 1 – Relied upon
        (b) Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 – Section 2(17)(ii)(c) (Amended) – Specific legislative intent of including “bid lands” both cultivable and uncultivable within the definition of “land”. (Para 9)
        (c) Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 – Section 2(1) (Amended) – Erstwhile ‘bid lands’ used for grazing cattle also included in definition of land for agricultural purpose – “Bid lands” are also now covered by Section 2(1) – Therefore the amended Ceiling Act applies to “bid lands”. (Para 9)
        (d) Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 – Section 2(6), Explanation I(e) (Pre-1974) – Ordinarily “grass lands” would be “dry crop lands” as the definition of “dry crop land” included “grass land” – “Grass land” could be promoted to the category of rice land – The contention that the Legislature had through over-sight omitted the word “includes” from Explanation I(e) cannot be accepted. (Para 11)
        (1966) 7 GLR 244 – Cited with approval
       Facts of the case:
        The question raised in these appeals is whether bid lands are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of land ceiling under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, as amended, which came into force from 1.4.1976.
       Finding of the Court:
        The definition of grass land and dry drop land having been amended, and the challenge to the amending Act having been given up, bid lands can be validly taken into consideration for the purposes of land ceiling.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S. H. Kapadia, CJI

Leave granted.

2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of cases is whether bid lands were required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of land ceiling under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, as amended vide Act 2 of 1974, which came into force from 1.4.1976.

3. At the outset, we may state that writ petitions were filed in the High Court inter alia challenging the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Amendment Act 2 of 1974 as violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. We may state that Amending Act 2 of 1974 has been included as Item No. 71 in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India by the Constitution Thirty-fourth Amendment Act. That inclusion was challenged before the Constitution Bench of this Court on the ground that Thirty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution violated the basic structure of the Constitution which challenge has now been given up in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in,1 2007 (2) SCC 1.

4. As regards the question of includability of the bid lands in the lands ceiling is concerned, the case of the appellant(s) before us was, that bid lands held by the appellant(s) being uncultivable waste lands; being rocky and stony were not included in the definition of “land” in the 1960 Act as originally enacted; that “bid lands” held by the appellant(s) were sought to be included in the total holding of the appellant(s) to determine the ceiling under the 1960 Act only by reason of Amendment Act 2 of 1974. At this stage, it may be noted that the said Amendment Act 2 of 1974, which came into force from 1.4.1976, was challenged only for the reason that under Section 5(1)(a) of Saurashtra Estates Acquisition Act, 1952 (“1952 Act” for short) no bid lands which were uncultivable waste vested in the State Government, which bid lands are now sought to be covered by 1960 Act on account of the impugned Amendment Act 2 of 1974. According to the appellant(s), once such “bid lands” stood excluded from vesting under the 1952 Act, the same could not be included for calculating the total holding to determine the ceiling limit under the 1960 Act, as amended. It was contended on behalf of the appellant(s) that bid lands which were also uncultivable waste lands cannot be included for computing the total holding under the 1960 Act, as amended, as the object of the Ceiling Act was to impose ceiling on lands held for cultivation or agricultural purposes. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) that bid lands cannot fall within the definition of dry crop land in clause (e) of Explanation I to Section 2(6) as only “grass lands” which abound in grass grown naturally and which are capable of being used for agricultural purposes could be included in such definition of “dry crop” land and since the “bid lands” did not fall in any “class of land” under Section 2(6), such land could not be included for calculating the ceiling limit under Section 6 of the 1960 Act, as amended. In this connection, Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s), submitted that the Act of 1960 (Unamended) was a useful guide in interpreting the definition of “dry crop land” under the Act. According to the learned counsel, the simple meaning of the said definition made it clear that “dry crop land” has been defined to include “grass land”, that is to say, land which abounds in grass grown naturally and which is capable of being used for agricultural purposes. According to the learned counsel, unwittingly, the word “includes” occurring in the unamended definition of `dry crop land’ was left out of the amended definition. Such omission, according to the learned counsel, can always be supplied by the Court. Since, the lands specified in paras (a) to (c), to wit, perennially irrigated land, seasonally irrigated land and superior dry crop la