Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.
Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Sangha & Ors.
Vs
State of West Bengal
WRIT APPLICATION Matter No. 1367 of 1987
Decided on : May 7, 1992
None
Fact of the Case:
The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Principal Act) was amended twice, in 1981 and 1986, to bring about drastic changes in the provisions of the Act. These amendments were challenged in a series of writ petitions filed before the Calcutta High Court, primarily on the grounds of unconstitutionality and violation of fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court upheld the validity of the protective umbrellas provided by Articles 31A, 31B and 31C of the Indian Constitution to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. However, the Court held that the impugned amendments were not protected under Article 31B, as they had not been included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Court also held that the amendments were covered by the protective umbrella of Article 31C, as they sought to achieve the objectives specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned amendments to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 were protected by the protective umbrellas provided by Articles 31A, 31B and 31C of the Indian Constitution? 2. Whether the impugned amendments violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned amendments were not protected under Article 31B, as they had not been included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. However, the Court held that the amendments were covered by the protective umbrella of Article 31C, as they sought to achieve the objectives specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39. 2. The Court held that the impugned amendments did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court reasoned that the amendments were a reasonable exercise of the State's power to regulate land use and distribution, and that they did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to property.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the validity of the protective umbrellas provided by Articles 31A, 31B and 31C of the Indian Constitution to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. However, the Court held that the impugned amendments were not protected under Article 31B, as they had not been included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Court also held that the amendments were covered by the protective umbrella of Article 31C, as they sought to achieve the objectives specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39. The Court further held that the impugned amendments did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
These two Amending Acts of 1981 and 1986 have made drastic amendments in the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act by amending the definition of 'Land' in s. 2(7) of the Principal Act. It has substituted earlier definition of 'land' and it runs thus:
"(7) Land means land of every description and includes tank, tank fishery, fishery, home-stead or land used for purpose of live-stock breeding, poultry, farming, dairy and land comprised in tea garden, mill, factory, workshop, orchard, hat, bazar, tolls or land having any other raiyati interest and other land together with all interests and benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth."
2. By inserting s. 3(A) in the Principal Act by s. 7 of the amending Act, the rights of all non-agricultural tenants and under-tenants in non-agricultural land has vested in the State. The non-agricultural lands held under the provisions of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 was directed to have vested to the State. As a consequence of these two major amendments, provisions have to be made for consequential amendment, in various other Sections. Besides that, the amending Act has also made provisions for reopening cases of Benami transaction and land held in Debuttor or trust. There are several other amendments as well which will be taken up in due course as I progress in the matter.
3. Mr. Pal has submitted that in challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment, we are required to examine first if the Act itself is covered by any of the protective umbrellas provided by Article 31(A), 31(B), and 31(C) of the Constitution. Mr. Pal then proceeded to contend that these enactments under challenge are not protected by these Articles. According to him Article 31(A) is only applicable to agrarian reforms. Since non-agricultural lands governed by West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, has been brought within the scope of the amending Act, it cannot now be held that these Acts are intended to effect agrarian reform as contemplated by Article 31(A). Non-agricultural lands governed by 1949 Act means lands used for the purposes not connected with agriculture or horticulture. These lands are mainly used for residential; industrial and other purposes not connected with agriculture. Taking over such land in any view cannot be considered as connected with or related to agrarian reform. On his submission, Mr. Pal has placed reliance on AIR 1972 SC 2240 Balmadis Plantations vs. State of Tamil Nadu).
4. Article 31(B) is not attracted, according to Mr. Pal, as it is an admitted position that the amending Acts under challenge has not been included in the 9th Schedule. Only because the Principal Act is included in the Ninth Schedule, the protection of Article 31(B) cannot be extended to the subsequent amending Acts of the self-same legislation. This must also be included in the Ninth Schedule. Only s. 14(B) in the Principal Act was placed in the Ninth Schedule. But there has been amendment in s. 14(B) which his altogether transformed its character and scope. Accordingly, protection under Article 31(B) cannot also be extended to amended s. 14(B). Relying on Waman Rao's case reported in AIR 1989 SC 271, Mr. Pal has submitted that even inclusion in the Ninth Schedule after 24th April 1973, will not protect the legislation under Article 31(B) if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. In this connection further submission was that since Article 14 is a part of the basic structure, the amendments under challenge will not be protected by Article 31(B). As the amending Acts are not included in the Ninth Schedule, the question of protection under Article 31(B) does not at all arise. Neither Mr. Gupta appearing for the State has submitted that such a protection is available.
5. With regard to protection under Article 31(C), Mr. Pal submits that these Articles protect laws giving effect to Directive princi
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
