1979 Supreme(Goa) 2

Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES J.C.
Lakshimibai Narayan Patil of Volvoi, Ponda - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondents
Special Civil Applns. (Writ Petns.) Nos. 75 to 77 of 1977 and 103, 111 of 1978
Decided On : 4 April 1979

An Act which enables the State to take away all the land held by the landlord and vest it on the cultivator without providing that there should be no concentration of land in the hands of the cultivator is not only violative of Arts.14 and 19 but does not come under the protective canopy of Art.31A, because it destroys the very purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the distribution of land so as to best subserve the common good and to avoid the accumulation of wealth to common detriment.

Headnote:

Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 17 of 1976) - Constitutionality - Whether the Act is an Agrarian Reform protected against the infringement of fundamental rights, by Art.31A of the Constitution and in case it is not whether the Act is violative of Art.14 or Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and does not impose reasonable restrictions on the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in the interest of general public - Held, the Act is unconstitutional and void.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, small landholders, assailed the constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 17 of 1976) on the ground that the Act violates Arts.14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and is not covered by Art.31A. The case of the petitioners was that the Act does not contain a scheme for Agrarian Reforms. The landlords in Goa who are generally small owners of land, have been divested of their land without any reservation. No ceiling area was fixed. On the other hand, land was allowed to be concentrated in the hands of tenants to any extent, in total disregard to the plight of the small landlords who are not in a better position than that of the tenant. The Act is a piece of colourable legislation enacted with the sole purpose of destroying a particular class of persons belonging to Society and aggrandising of another class. It fixes no ceiling for the holding of land either by the tenant or by the landlord. The Act is the antithesis of Agrarian Reforms. In relation to the Principal Act which the Act seeks to amend, the Act gives a retrograde step inasmuch as it repeals Chap, III of the Principal Act whereby provisions are made for the resumption of land by the landlord for personal cultivation in disregard to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. To lend colour to the Act, a recital is made in its Statement of Objects and Reasons that the "Bill" is based on similar legislation which is in force in Maharashtra. In actual fact, the Act has left out all the provisions of the Maharashtra Act which are beneficial to landlords. The concepts of "economic holding" and "fragmentation" were overlooked. The sole object of the Act, as is evident from the Statements of Objects and Reasons, is "to confer ownership rights on the cultivating tenants" thereby creating a new class of landlords. Land not purchased by tenants is distributed to persons totally unconnected with agriculture. Land taken away from landlords and not purchased by tenants is vested in certain cases in the Government without any obligation to assign it for purposes connected with agriculture and giving Government liberty to appropriate it for any use. The Act does not provide for an equitable distribution which will subserve the common good. Neither does it prevent the accumulation of lands in the hands of some to common detriment. It discriminates between landlord (former owner) and tenant (new owner). It provides for a compensation that is not real and genuine, but illusory.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Act is not an Agrarian Reform protected by Art.31A of the Constitution and that it violates Arts.14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act does not contain a scheme for Agrarian Reforms and that it is a piece of colourable legislation enacted with the sole purpose of destroying a particular class of persons belonging to Society and aggrandising of another class. The Court also held that the Act fixes no ceiling for the holding of land either by the tenant or by the landlord, and that it does not provide for an equitable distribution of land. The Court further held that the compensation payable under the Act is illusory.

Issues: Whether the Act is an Agrarian Reform protected against the infringement of fundamental rights, by Art.31A of the Constitution and in case it is not whether the Act is violative of Art.14 or Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and does not impose reasonable restrictions on the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in the interest of general public.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Act is not an Agrarian Reform protected by Art.31A of the Constitution and that it violates Arts.14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act does not contain a scheme for Agrarian Reforms and that it is a piece of colourable legislation enacted with the sole purpose of destroying a particular class of persons belonging to Society and aggrandising of another class. The Court also held that the Act fixes no ceiling for the holding of land either by the tenant or by the landlord, and that it does not provide for an equitable distribution of land. The Court further held that the compensation payable under the Act is illusory.

Final Decision: The Court allowed all the five Writ Petitions and declared the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976 to be unconstitutional and void and quashed it.