Parashram Damodhar Vaidya vs The State of Bombay and Anr

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1957 Supreme(Bom) 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah J.C. and Gokhale B.N. , JJ.
Appellants: Parashram Damodhar Vaidya
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Bombay and Anr.
Special Civil Appln. No. 2523 of 1956
Decided On: 21.02.1957
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.A. Jahagirdar and V.M. Limaye, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.P. Amin, Adv. General and G.N. Joshi, i/b., Little and Co., Attorneys

Headnote:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1956 - Validity - Assent of the President - Competence of the State Legislature - Right to property - Delegated legislation.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a landlord, challenged the validity of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1956 on various grounds, including lack of assent by the President, incompetence of the State Legislature, violation of the right to property, and delegation of legislative authority.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the President had assented to the Bill, and that the State Legislature was competent to enact the legislation under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which authorizes the State Legislature to legislate on matters related to land, land tenures, and the relation of landlord and tenant. The Court also held that the Act did not violate the right to property guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution, as it was protected by Article 31A, which allows for the acquisition of property by the State for a public purpose and with compensation. The Court further held that the provisions of the Act did not amount to delegated legislation, as the Legislature had laid down the vital policy and the delegation was not of essential legislative functions.
Issues: 1. Whether the President had assented to the Bill. 2. Whether the State Legislature was competent to enact the legislation. 3. Whether the Act violated the right to property guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the provisions of the Act amounted to delegated legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the President had assented to the Bill, as evidenced by the signature of the President on the original Bill. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the President had made certain recommendations to the State Legislature to reconsider the Bill, as there was no provision in Article 201 of the Constitution for the President to recommend amendments to a Bill. 2. The Court held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the legislation under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which authorizes the State Legislature to legislate on matters related to land, land tenures, and the relation of landlord and tenant. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the legislation was beyond the scope of Entry 18, as the expression "land" in Entry 18 was wide enough to include legislation concerning rights in or over land, including the relation of landlord and tenant. 3. The Court held that the Act did not violate the right to property guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution, as it was protected by Article 31A, which allows for the acquisition of property by the State for a public purpose and with compensation. The Court held that the Act provided for statutory conveyance of the interest of the landlords to the tenants in occupation of lands, and that this was a valid exercise of the State's power to acquire property for a public purpose. 4. The Court held that the provisions of the Act did not amount to delegated legislation, as the Legislature had laid down the vital policy and the delegation was not of essential legislative functions. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that Section 7 of the Act, which empowered the State Government to vary the ceiling area and economic holding, amounted to delegated legislation, as the Legislature had prescribed the factors to be considered by the State Government in exercising this power.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the rule with costs, subject to the declaration about the invalidity of Section 88D of the Act, which delegated legislative authority to the State Government to exempt certain lands from the provisions of the Act.

Judgment -

1. The petitioner, a resident of village Pali in the district of Thana, is a landlord owning 135 acres of Kharif lands and 70 acres of Warkas lands in the villages of Bhusegaib, Tighar, Nangurle, Venagaon, Parada, Dahigaon, Sapele, Vave, Vavaloli, Tambus and Avalas in Karjat Taluka of Kolaba district. The petitioner pay Rs. 990/-as assessment and local fund cess for the aforesaid lands. In this application the petitioner contents that Bombay Act 13 of 1956, which purports to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, is invalid. The petitioner urges that when Bill No. 34 of 1955, which subsequently was published as Act 13 of 1956, was submitted to the President for his assent, the President suggested certain alterations, but the bill was not returned to the Legislature of the State of Bombay and was published as an Act: and as the provisions of Art. 201 of the Constitution of India were contravened the Bill was not validly enacted as law. He also contends that the Bombay State Legislature was incompetent to enact Act 13 of 1956, and submits that in any event Sections 5, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 9, 17A, 29A, 31A, 31B, 31C, 31D, 32 to 32R, 34, 63A and 84C are inconsistent with the Constitution and hence void. It is finally urged that Sections 7, 32H (2) and 88D delegate legislative authority to the Government and are on that score void.

2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, it may be necessary to give a short resume of the agrarian legislation enacted by the Legislature of the Bombay State since the year 1938. In 1038 the Bombay Legislature passed the Bombay Small Holders Relief Act 8 of 1938 with the object of giving protection to agricultural debtors against execute on of decrees passed against them and also to tenants against eviction by landlords. The Act also plated restrictions upon transfers by small holders of their lands and dwelling houses and provided for suspension of rent and payment of interest in case land revenue was suspended wholly or partially.

3. In 1939 the Bombay Legislature passed the Bombay Tenancy Act which conferred protection upon tenants against eviction by landlords and converted all subsisting contractual tenancies for less than ten years into tenancies of a duration of ten years. The Legislature restricted the rights of the landlords to obtain passes on of land by surrender, and conferred upon all persons who had been continuously in possession of land for six years preceding the 1st of January, 1938, and had cultivated the land personally, the status of protected tenants even if they had been evicted after 1-4-1937. The Act also provided that the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, fix minimum rates of rent payable by the tenants in any areas specified in the notification and provided a bar to eviction of tenants from dwelling houses and conferred a first option of purchasing the site on which the tenant had built a building and also the trees planted by the tenant.

4. The next step was taken when the Legislature passed the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1918. The Government took upon itself the power to fix the maximum rent Which may be chargeable as equivalent of crop-share and the Act provided for fixation of reasonable rent. It restricted the right of landlords to terminate contractual tenancies notwithstanding any law, agreement or usage or even decrees or orders of the Court. Power was also conferred upon the Government to take over management Of estates held by landlords where the lands were neglected on account, of disputes between the landlords and their tenants or for ensuring full and efficient use of the lands. Transfers of lands to non-agriculturists were severely restricted and tenants in possession of lands were given priority in purchasing lands from their landlords at prices fixed by the tribunal appointed in that behalf. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain suits in matters which were entrusted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document