SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Bom) 218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Panaji-Goa)
Ginwala A.A. Couto,G.F. JJ.
Manoel Francisco Agremiro da Conceicao
Fernandes.... Petitioner.
Versus
Collector of Daman and others.... Respondents.
Spl. Civil Appln. No. 73 of 1972 with Spl. Civil Appln. No. 74 of 1972 decided on 17-8-1983.
Advocate Appeared::
For petitioner-S. Chinnoy.
For respondents-/. Dias, Govt. Advocate.

The Regulation was a valid exercise of the legislative power conferred on the President under Article 240 of the Constitution and that it was enacted for a public purpose, namely, the abolition of the proprietorship of villages in Daman. The compensation provided under the Regulation was just and fair.

Headnote:

Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 - Constitutional validity - Acquisition of land - Compensation - Legislative competence - Public purpose - Just and fair compensation - Articles 14, 19, 31, 31A, 240, 246 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, proprietors of villages in Daman, challenged the constitutional validity of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 (the Regulation) and the orders passed by the Collector of Daman under it. They contended that the Regulation violated Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution and was not protected by Article 31A. The petitioners also challenged the orders passed by the Collector determining the compensation payable to them under the Regulation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Regulation was constitutionally valid and was protected by Article 31A of the Constitution. The Court found that the Regulation was a valid exercise of the legislative power conferred on the President under Article 240 of the Constitution and that it was enacted for a public purpose, namely, the abolition of the proprietorship of villages in Daman. The Court also found that the compensation provided under the Regulation was just and fair.

Issues: 1. Whether the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 (the Regulation) was constitutionally valid? 2. Whether the Regulation violated Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Regulation was protected by Article 31A of the Constitution? 4. Whether the orders passed by the Collector of Daman determining the compensation payable to the petitioners under the Regulation were valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Regulation was constitutionally valid and was protected by Article 31A of the Constitution. 2. The Court found that the Regulation was a valid exercise of the legislative power conferred on the President under Article 240 of the Constitution and that it was enacted for a public purpose, namely, the abolition of the proprietorship of villages in Daman. 3. The Court also found that the compensation provided under the Regulation was just and fair.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions. However, the Court directed the Collector of Daman to hold an inquiry to determine the extent of land which vested in the Government on the appointed date under section 3 of the Regulation having regard to the definition of “land” in section 2 (g) of the Regulation as amended by the Amending Act of 1968 after giving a reasonable and proper opportunity to the petitioners and the other claimants, if they so desire, of being heard.

JUDGMENT - Ginwala J.-These two writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment since they raise a common question about the validity of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Regulation”) and the orders passed by the Collector of Daman under it.

2. In order to appreciate properly the various contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners, it would be convenient at the outset to take note of the legislative and judicial history of the Regulation and its salient features The territories which immediately before 20-12-1961 were comprised in Goa, Daman and Diu and were under the Portuguese rule, were declared as Union Territory by including them in Part 11 of the First Schedule of the Constitution by the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962. By the said Amending Act this Union Territory was included in clause (1) of Article 240 of the Constitution,' thus enabling the President of India to make regulations for its peace, progress and good government. In exercise of the powers so conferred on him by the said clause, the President promulgated the Regulation to provide for abolition of proprietorship of villages in the Daman District in the said Union Territory. It was to come into force on such date as the Central Government was to appoint and this date being the 13th day of July, 1962 was to be the “appointed date” within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2 of the Regulation. Under clause (g) of section 2 of the Regulation as originally promulgated “land” was defined to mean every class or category of land including benefits to arise out of such land and, things attached to earth. Section 2(h) defines “proprietor” to mean a person, who holds any village or villages granted to him or any of his predecessors-iu-interest by the former Portuguese Government by way of gift, sale or otherwise including his co-sharers. Under section 3 all rights, title and interest of every proprietor in or in respect of all lands in his village or villages are deemed to have been extinguished on and from the appointed date and they stand transferred to and vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. By virtue of section 4 notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 3 a proprietor is entitled to retain with effect from the appointed date lands under his personal cultivation not being pasture or grass lands, as also homesteads, buildings and structures in his occupation together with the lands appurtenant thereto. Sections authorises the Collector to take charge of all lands and of all rights, title and interest therein of a proprietor vested in the Government under section 3, but does not authorise him to take possession of any land or of any right of proprietor, which may be retained by him under section 4. Section 6 subjects all lands in villages, the rights, title and interest in which have vested in the Government under section 3 to payment of land revenue to the Government in accordance with revenue survey and settlement of land revenue with effect on and from the appointed date. A provision has been made in this section for assessing and recovering the land revenue payable in respect of such lands until revenue survey and settlement of land revenue in respect of such lands are made. Section 7 provides for restoration of possession of their lands to certain cultivating tenants. Under sub-section (1) of section 8 every cultivating tenant holding land of which he was in actual possession on 20 12-1961, became the occupant thereof on payment of land revenue to the Government under section 6 as from the appointed date. Similarly under sub-section (2) of section 8 every proprietor holding the land which he was personally cultivating on 20-12-1961 and the possession of which had not been restored to the cultivating tenant under section 7, is to hold such land as occupant on payment of land revenue as provided hi section 6. Section 9 provides for p






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top