HEADNOTE:

The petitioners, in this round of challenge assailed the validity of Section 14M, 17(c), 17(6) and 21 B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, calling to their aid certain observations made by this Court in Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani and Sri Sri Raghunath Jain & Ors etc v. Union of India & Ors. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 950 and the decisions in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 206 and Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 1 The petitioners raised the following points:

(i) that the total ceiling area allowed to be retained by the 1953 Act in respect of agricultural land in Khas possession of the Raiyats was drastically reduced;

(ii) that although the status of Raiyats was conferred on the erstwhile landlords which was heritable and transferable, the institution of bargards was introduced in order to enable the raiyats to cultivate their lands on a 50:50 basis and,

(iii) that while the Amendment Act of 1972 had given a right to the raiyats to resume the lands given to the bargardars for their personal cultivation; the subsequent amendments took away this right and made the right of the bargardar both heritable and transferable causing serious detriment and prejudice to the raiyats.

Dismissing the petitions, the Court.

HELD :1.1 The impugned amendments were manifestly and pointedly made for the purpose of giving effect to and securing the objects of Article 39(b) because these Acts clearly intended to distribute the material resources of the community viz, the agricultural lands to a large number of tillers of the soil in order to serve the common good on the aforesaid people. The Amendments fall within the letter and spirit of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. 1 lie Acts have not touched the non-agricultural home stead lands, or buildings of the Land owners standing thereon but has taken over only a major portion of the agricultural lands, leaving with the landlords a portion prescribed within the ceiling limit and distributed the excess to the tillers of the soil which alone constitute their main source of sustenance and livelihood. The claim of the raiyats (erstwhile landlords) that the Acts amount to confiscation is absolutely untenable and amounts only to shedding crocodile tears and an anathema or taboo. [860 H; 861 A-B; 860 G]

1.2 The error regarding the addition of Amending Acts as items of Entry in the Ninth Schedule was inadvertently crept in the decision of Sri Sri Kalimata Thakarani’s case. Even if the Acts were not included in the Ninth Schedule their constitutional validity could not be questioned because the provisions are otherwise reasonable and give full effect to the pragmatic and socialistic approach as contained in Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani and Sri Sri Raghunath Jew and Ors v. Union of India & Ors. [1981]2 S.C.R 950 Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India and Ors [1981] 1 S.C.R. 206; Waman Rao & Ors v Union of India & Ors [1981] 2 S.C.R. 1 Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Anr [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147, Sasanka Sekhar Maity & Ors, Union of India & Ors, 1980; 4 S.C.C. 716, State of Tamil Nadu etc v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors CA Nos 957-966 (N) of 1973 decided on 31-10-83 followed.

1.3 The Amendment Acts cannot be challenged as violative of the doctrine of nexus or involving no process of distributions; State of Karnataka v Rangnatha Reddy & Anr [1978] 1 S.C.R. 641, Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India & Ors [1981] 2 S.C.R. 950, Sanjeeva Coke Manufacturing Co. v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Anr [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147, and State of Tamilnadu etc v. L. Abukavar Bai & Ors C.A. No. 957-966 (N) of 1973 decided on 31-10-1983 followed.

1.4 The provisions of the Amendment by which the raiyat is enjoined to reside in the village itself for a large part of the year cannot be said to be either harsh or arbitrary.

Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [1981]2 S.C.R. 950, applied.

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ