Back
Karnataka High Court
BABURAO Alias BHIMARAO DESAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondent
Decided On : 07-30-69
W.P. : 3020 of 1968
Land Reforms - Constitutionality of Mysore Land Reforms Acts - Sec. 14, 16, 31-A, 31-B, 31-C of Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court discussed the constitutionality of the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1965, and the Mysore Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1967. The court analyzed the impact of sub-sec. (10-B) of Sec. 16 of the Act on the rights of landlords in different areas of the state and its compliance with Art. 14 of the Constitution. The court also considered the legislative history and the purpose of the Second Amendment Act in regulating resumption of lands by landlords from tenants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Mysore Land Reforms Acts, particularly the provisions related to resumption of lands by landlords from tenants. The petitioners argued that the provisions discriminated between landlords in different areas of the state and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution. The State contended that the Amendment Acts were protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that sub-sec. (10-B) of Sec. 16 of the Act treated landlords in the Bombay Area differently from landlords in other areas, imposing a lower ceiling limit for resumption of lands in the Bombay Area. The court held that the Amendment Acts were protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: Constitutionality of Mysore Land Reforms Acts, discrimination between landlords in different areas, compliance with Art. 14 of the Constitution, protection under Art. 31-A of the Constitution
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Acts, particularly sub-sec. (10-B) of Sec. 16, discriminated against landlords in the Bombay Area and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution. However, the court found that the Amendment Acts were protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution, and therefore, dismissed the petitions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Mysore Land Reforms Acts, citing the protection of the Amendment Acts under Art. 31-A of the Constitution.
( 1 ) IN these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the constitutionality of the provisions of the mysore Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1965, (Mysore Act 14 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the First Amendment Act) and of the mysore Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1967, (Mysore Act 11 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the Second Amendment Act), has been challenged.
( 2 ) THE petitioners are landlords in the Bombay Area of the new State of Mysore. They had filed statements under Sec. 14 of the Mysore Land reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) indicating the extents of lands which they intended to resume for cultivating personally. In W. Ps. Nos. 699, 703, 706 and 1049 of 1969, the appeals from the decisions of the Land Tribunals are pending before the Appellate Authorities. In WPs. Nos. 762, 777, 866, 922 and 1159 of 1969 the Appellate Authority has cancelled certificates issued by the Land Tribunals under Sec. 14 of the Act in favour of the landlords, and has remanded the cases to the respective land Tribunals for fresh disposal according to law. In rest of the petitions, the claims of the landlords for resumption of lands from their tenants, are pending before the Land Tribunals.
( 3 ) IN all these petitions we have been asked to declare as void the Second amendment Act while in most of these petitions we have been asked to declare as void the First Amendment Act also. In W. Ps. Nos. 762, 777 866, 922 and 1159 of 1969 the petitioners have, in addition, prayed for quashing the orders of the Appellate Authority and to restore the orders of the Land tribunals. In the rest of the petitions the petitioners have, in addition, asked us to direct the Land Tribunals or the Appellate Authorities, as the case may be, not to apply the provisions of sub-sec. (10-B) of Sec. 16 of the Act in determining the extents of lands the petitioners are permitted to resume.
( 4 ) THE Act was enacted by the Mysore State Legislature and has-received the assent of the President. The object of the Act, as stated in its preamble, is to bring a uniform law in the State of Mysore relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings and certain other matters.
( 5 ) THE Act as originally enacted (hereinafter referred to as the Principal act) was included in Sch. IX to the Constitution. Under Art. 31-B of the constitution the Principal Act and its provisions are immune from attack on the ground of their taking away or abridging any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under any of the Articles in Part-Ill of the Constitution. Even before the Principal Act came into force, it was amended by the first Amendment Act. The Principal Act as amended by the First amendment Act, came into force on 2-10-1965. Sec. 14 of the Act enables a landlord to resume the lands owned by him and in the possession of his tenants, if he bonafide requires the lands for cultivating personally. Sec. 16 of the Act contains conditions restricting resumption of lands under Sec. 14 of the Act. Sub-sec. (10-B) which was inserted in Sec. 16 of the Principal Act by the First Amendment Act, provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B. T. and A. L. Act), as in force in the Bombay Area of the new State of Mysore, the extent of land resumable by any landlord in the Bombay Area shall be subject to restrictions and conditions specified in the B. T. and A. L. Act as in force in the Bombay Area on 1-11-1956. Likewise sub-sec. (10-C) which was inserted in Sec. 16 of the principal Act by the First Amendment Act, provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as in force in the Hyderabad Area of the new State of Mysore, the extent of land resumable by any landlord in the Hyderabad Area, shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in that Act as in force in
AI
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
