ons Nos 93 and 125 of 1959
Petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
V M Limaye E Udayarathnam and section section Shukla for the petitioners
734 HN Sanyal Additional Solicitor General of India R Ganapathy Iyer and D Gupta for the respondent
W section Barlingay and A G Ratnaparkhi for the Interveners
April 4
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J
These two writ petitions have been filed under article 32 of the Constitution and they seek to challenge the validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 99 of 1958 hereafter called the Act
The impugned Act in substance is intended to extend to Vidarbha region and Cutch area which had then become a part of the Greater Bi Lingual State of Bombay the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act 1956 Act XIII of 1956
The preamble to the impugned Act shows that it was intended to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and sites used for allied purposes in the two areas of the State of Bombay and to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands
In extending the provisions of the earlier Bombay Act XIII of 1956 to the two areas the legislature has conformed to the pattern set up by the said earlier Act
The policy underlying the Act and the object intended to be achieved by it are the same and the method adopted in achieving that object is also the same
The validity of the earlier Bombay Act XIII of 1956 was challenged before this Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi vs The State of Bombay 1 but the challenge failed and the Act was held to be constitutional
One of the points which arose for decision in that case was whether the impugned Act was protected by article 31A2a of the Constitution and the answer to that question depended upon the determination of another issue which was whether the lands to which the said Act applied were an estate as required by article 31A2a
In dealing with that question this Court held that the word estate as defined by section 25 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 clearly applied to the lands 1 1959 Supp 1 SCR 489
735 covered by the Act and so article 31A2a was applicable
Having regard to this decision the only point which Mr Limaye attempted to raise before us in support of the two writ petitions is that the lands belonging to the two petitioners are not an estate within the meaning of article 31A2a and so the impugned Act is outside the protection of article 31A
If this contention is not upheld then it is obvious that the writ petitions must fail if the said contention is upheld then of course the other contentions raised by the two writ petitions against the validity of certain specific provisions of the Act may fall to be consi dered
The two petitioners are Namdeorao Baliramji and Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe respectively
The first one resides at Amraoti and the second at Yeotmal
The first owns about 80 acres dry lands situated in Amraoti out of which 43 acres are under his personal cultivation and the rest in the possession of the tenants
The second petitioner owns about 1168 acres dry lands situated in Yeotmal out of which 400 acres are under his personal cultivation and the rest with the tenants
The lands in both the cases are charged to the payment of land revenue
The case for both the petitioners is that the lands thus held by them are not an estate within the meaning of article 31A2a
Article 31A2a provides inter alia that the expression estate shall in relation to any local area have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area
The existing local law it is common ground is the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1954 II of 1955 and so it is necessary to find whether the lands belonging to the petitioners can be said to be an estate  within the meaning of the said Code
Before we do so however it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant definitions in the impugned Act
Section 217 of the Act defines land as meaning inter alia land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and includes the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to such land
Section 218 defines a land holder as meaning a 736 tenure holder whom the State Government has declared on account of tile extent and value of the land or his interests therein to be a land holder for the purposes of this Act
Nows27 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in question defines a holding as meaning inter aliaa parcel of land separately assessed to land revenueand section 220 defines a tenure holder as meaning a person holding from the State Government as a Bhumiswami or a Bhumidari
Chapter XII of the Code deals with tenure holders
Section 145 provides that there shall be two classes of tenure holders of lands held from the State namely Bhumiswami and Bhumidhari
Section 146 deals with Bhumiswami
It provides that every person who at the coming into force of this Code belongs to any of the classes specified in clauses a to f of the said section shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and is subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code
Amongst these classes is the class covered by el
e which relates to persons in respect of lands held by them as occupants in Berar
Thus reading the relevant definitions along with the provisions of section 146 of the Code it would follow that the land in the possession of the Bhumiswami who is a tenure holder is in substance all estate
It is true that the word estate as such has not been employed in the Code but it must be borne in mind that article 31A2a refers not only to estate but also to its local equivalent
It was realised that in many areas the existing law relating to land tenures may not expressly define all estate as such though the said areas had their local equivalents described and defined
That is why the relevant provision of the Constitution has deliberately used both the word estate as well as its local equivalent
The petitioners hold lands under the State and they pay land revenue for the lands thus held by them
Therefore there is no difficulty in holding that under the existing law relating to land tenures the lands held by them fill within the class of the local equivalents of the word estate as contemplated by 737 article 31A2a
If that is so the contention raised by Mr Limaye that the impugned Act is not protected by article 31A cannot succeed
As we have already indicated it is not disputed that if article 31A applies there can be no further challenge to the validity of the impugned statute
The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed with costs one SEt of hearing costs
Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area Act 1958 which extended the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act 1956 to Vidarbha and Kutch
That Act was declared valid by this Court in Sri Ram Narain Medhi vs The State of Bombay 1950 Supp 1 SCR 489 and one of the reason  for doing so was that the lands covered by that Act fell within the definition of the word estate  contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879
The lands in question in the present petitions were situated in Amraoti and Yeotmal and the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area was the Madha Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1954
This Code did not employ the word estate  and it was contended by the petitioners that the impugned Act was not within the protection of article 31A of the Constitution
Held that the contention must fail
Although the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1954 did not employ the word estate  the relevant definition contained in sections 217 and 218 of impugned Act and sections 27 220 of the Code read with sections 145 and I46 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the lands in the possession of the petitioners were tenures and in substance in estate
Since the petitioners held the lards tinder the State and paid land revenue for them the lands fell within the class of local equivalents of the word estate  as contemplated by article 31A2a of the Constitution