Back
1962 Supreme(Gau) 68
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
T.N.R.Tirumalpad, J.
Sambhu Ratan Tewari -Appellant
Versus
Administrator and Chief Commissioner of Tripura -Respondent
Writ PetitionNo. 10 of 1961
Decided On : 02-08-1962
S.Majumdar, R.C.Bhattacharjee, P.K.Bhattacharjee, N.Dutt Majumdar, J.K.Roy , J.Choudhary
Headnote:
The Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 43 of 1960) was challenged by the petitioner, a landowner in the Kamalpur subdivision of Tripura, on the grounds that certain provisions of the Act, including sections 1(3), 123, 134(1), and 167(2), were unconstitutional and that the notifications issued under these provisions were invalid. The High Court held that the impugned provisions of the Act were validly enacted and did not violate any of the petitioner's fundamental rights. However, the Court found that the notification issued under section 134(1) (Annexure D(1)) was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of the section. The Court declared the notification void and directed both parties to bear their own costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landowner in the Kamalpur subdivision of Tripura, challenged the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 43 of 1960) on the grounds that certain provisions of the Act, including sections 1(3), 123, 134(1), and 167(2), were unconstitutional and that the notifications issued under these provisions were invalid. The petitioner argued that the provisions in question violated Articles 13, 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution of India and that the notifications were issued without proper authority and in a discriminatory manner.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned provisions of the Act were validly enacted and did not violate any of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The Court found that the provisions were in line with the legislative policy and principle enunciated in the Act and that the discretion vested in the Administrator to implement the provisions was not excessive. The Court also held that the notifications issued under sections 1(3) and 134(1) were valid and did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of power. However, the Court found that the notification issued under section 134(1) (Annexure D(1)) was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of the section. The Court noted that the notification was issued before the commencement of the Act and that the vesting date mentioned in the notification was also prior to the commencement of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 43 of 1960), violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 13, 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the notifications issued under the Act, particularly Annexure D(1) issued under section 134(1), were valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned provisions of the Act, including sections 1(3), 123, 134(1), and 167(2), were held to be validly enacted and did not violate any of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The Court found that the provisions were in line with the legislative policy and principle enunciated in the Act and that the discretion vested in the Administrator to implement the provisions was not excessive. 2. The notifications issued under sections 1(3) and 134(1) were held to be valid and did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of power. The Court noted that the legislature had laid down the policy and principles of the Act and that the Administrator was given the discretion to implement the provisions in different areas and at different times based on local conditions and administrative convenience. 3. However, the notification issued under section 134(1) (Annexure D(1)) was held to be void due to non-compliance with the provisions of the section. The Court found that the notification was issued before the commencement of the Act and that the vesting date mentioned in the notification was also prior to the commencement of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court declared the notification issued under section 134(1) (Annexure D(1)) to be void and directed both parties to bear their own costs.
(2) The Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (Act 43 of 1960) passed by Parliament received the assent of the President of India oil 21-9-1960 and was published in the Tripura Gazette-Extraordinary dated 2-12-1960. The preamble of the Act, which shows its purpose, mentions that it was for consolidating and amending the law relating to Land Revenue in the Union Territory of Tripura and to provide for the acquisition of estates and for certain other measures of land reforms.
The Act consists of six parts. Part I containing Chapter I covering Ss. 1 and 2, relates to the short title, extent, commencement and definitions. Part II, containing Chapters II to VIII covering Sees. 3 to 98, deals with Revenue Divisions, appointment, powers and duties of Revenue Officers, Land and Land Records, and Survey, Settlement and Realisation of Land Revenue etc. In short, Part II deals with the first purpose mentioned in the preamble namely, the consolidation and amendment of the law relating to land Revenue. Parts III to VI deal with the other object namely, to provide for the acquisition of estates and for certain other measures of land reform. Part III consisting of Chapter IX and X covering Ss. 99 to 132 deals with the rights of raiyats and under-raiyats in land. We are concerned in particular with Sec. 123 in Chapter X therein which provides for the restoration of possession of land to an under-raiyat where an under-raiyat of any land has, on or after the 10th of August, 1957, surrendered, or been evicted from, such land and the surrender and eviction could not have taken place if this Act had been in force on the date of such surrender or eviction. The date 10-8-57 is significant as the date on which the original draft bill' was first published. Part IV consisting of Chapters XI and XII covering sections 133 to 161 deals-with the acquisition of estates and the assessment and payment of compensation to the intermediaries therein. Section 134 in Chapter XI, which provides for the vesting of all estates in the Govt. has come in for special attack in this petition. Part V consisting of Chapter XIII and XIV covering sections 162 to 184 deals with ceiling on land" holdings and prevention of fragmentation. These are some of the measures of land reforms mentioned in the preamble. We are concerned in particular with Section 167 (2) in Chapter XIII which provides that for the purpose of determining the excess land held by a person, any land transferred at any time during the period between 10th August, 1957 and the commencement of the Act, was, notwithstanding such transfer, to be deemed to be held by the transferor. Part VI consisting of Chapter XV containing Ss. 185 to 199 relates to General and Miscellaneous matters which are ancillary to the earlier provisions and intended to help in giving effect to the earlier provisions.
(3) It will be seen from Part I and S. 1 (3) that the Administrator is given the power to bring the various provisions of the Act into force in all the areas of Tripura by notification in the Official Gazette appointing
