Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J. S. Verma and K. N. Shukla, JJ.
CHHEDILAL AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Civil Case 302 Of 1980
Decided On : 12/03/1983
(2) Constitution of India-Art. 246 (3), Entry 30 of List II of the VII Schedule-laws for relief of agricultural indebtedness-State Legislature is competent to pass such laws.
The legislative competence of the State Legislature under Art, 246 (3) of the Constitution for enacting the S. K. K. V. K. K. D. K. U. D. K. B. H. S. Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam was challenged.
Held: Entry 30 of List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution empowers the state Legislature to make laws for the relief of agricultural indebt-ness. The object of the Act impugned clearly indicates that it is for this purpose and is valid. AIR 1971 SC 161, 1976 JLJ 842, AIR 1978 SC 771, AIR 1977 SC 1825 & AIR & AIR 1978 Patna 172 relied on. [Para 4 & 5]
(3) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Bhumi Dharakon Ko Udhar Denewalon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambhandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam 1977(MP)-S. 2(c)-weaker sections of the people in the Adhiniyam not defined -assistance to interpret the expression 'weaker section' can be taken from the statement of objects and reasons to find out the meaning-there is no descrmation in this section and the provision of section 7 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
(4) Interpretation of statutes-expression not defined in an Act-meaning can be derived from preamble of the Act.
The expression 'weaker section' contained in section 2 (c) of Paritran Adhiniyam, 1977, is not defined in the Act. The Legislative intent can be gathered from the preamble of the Act which provides an umbrella to such holders of agricultural land who do not possess land in excess of eight hectares of unirrigated or four hectares of irrigated land and who also belong to the weaker sections of the people. This definition will include only such holder" of land who can be classed as economically, socially and educationally weaker sections as compared to those who are comparatively in a better position. [Para 10]
If the definition which has to be understood in the context of the preamble of the Act is kept in mind it will become clear that the alleged discrimination in respect of the remedies and forum available to the holders of land covered by Act No.3 of 1977 and those referred to in the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 is reasonable and does not offend any of the Articles of the Constitution. It is incorrect to say that the procedure and forum prescribed under the impugned Act is discriminatory because other agriculturists holding lands upto the ceiling limits will have to resort to the procedure and from under the Code of Civil Procedure; Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act etc. for a decision on the question whether a transaction is a mortgage or not. [Para 11]
(5) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vragon Ke Krishibhumi Dharakon Ko Udhar Denewalon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1977(MP)-Ss. 4, 5, 6 and 7-procedure of inquiry under-is not ultra-vires because the procedure of enquiry is not unreasonable and unfair.
Looking to the procedure prescribed in sections 4 to 7 of the Act it is quite fair. These sections are not unfair. [Para 12
(6) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishibhumi Dharakon Ko Udhar Denewalon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1971(MP)-S. 10-bar on the appearance of legal practitioners on behalf of any of the parties-it is not infringement a fundamental right.
The bar contained in section 10 of the Act applies to both the parties. There is no fundamental right for obtaining appearance of a lawyer in a proceeding before a Tribunal. The provision contained in section 10 of the Act cannot be struck down on the ground of unreasonableness or in violation on constitutional right.
The restriction is imposed on the appearance of lawyers. The Legislature was competent to take in to account the unequal level of the contestants. The provisions of section 10 of the Act are neither unconstitutional nor unreasonable. AIR 1977 SC 36 relied on. [Para 13]
( 1 ) THIS is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 14-8-1980 passed on Misc. Petition No. 422 of 1980 dismissing petitioner's petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan under Section 7 of the M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ke Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act No. 3 of 1977 ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner in the writ petition had claimed that the transaction in question which was held to be a prohibited transaction of loan by the Sub-Divisional Officer was in fact not a transaction of loan but of out-right sale of agricultural land, and, therefore, the impugned order declaring it to be void under Section 7 of the Act was illegal. This Court held that a finding of fact had been recorded by the competent authority i. e, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the same was confirmed by the Collector who was the appellate authority and there was no basis for interfering with this finding in the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE petitioner then filed the present review petition on the ground that in the writ petition he had omitted to raise some points which go to the root of the matter. The new points which the petitioner has now sought to raise are :-- i. Act No. 3 of 1977 is ultra vires Article 246 of the Constitution because the State Legislature was not competent to pass such an Act. ii. A holder of agricultural land under Act No. 3 of 1977 is a person holding 8 hectares unirrigated or 4 hectares irrigated land. Under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, a holder who is not a member of a family cannot possess more than 30 acres of unirrigated land (which comes to about 8 hectares ). Such other agriculturists holding lands up to the ceiling limit under the P. M. Law are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Transfer, of Property Act, the Contract Act and other Acts dealing with moneylending and relief of rural indebtedness. In cases falling under these several enactments the forum for decision whether a transaction is a mortgage or not is determined by a Civil Court while the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of holders of agricultural land falling under Act No. 3 of 1977 which makes special provision for certain class of landholders. The Act, therefore, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. iii. Provisions of Sections 2 (c), (d), (f), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution because the petitioner who also holds land less than 4 hectares of irrigated land and eight hectares of unirrigated land is denied equality of laws and equal protection of the laws. iv. The petitioner is denied the right to file a written statement and to engage a legal practitioner for defending his case and such denial of procedural safeguards under the Code of Civil Procedure violates his right of equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
( 4 ) GROUND No. i:-- On the question of legislative competence. Entry 30 of List II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution empowers the Stale Legislature to make laws for relief of agricultural indebtedness. The object of Act No. 3 of 1977 has been stated as follows : -"an Act to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many a form by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith. " Thus, the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Article 246 (3) for enacting this Act could not be disputed. In Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 161, while referring to certain provisions of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (26 of 1
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
