Civil Appeal No 936 of 1977
From the Judgement and Order dated 1691976 of the Bombay High Court in SCA No 2741 of 1971
Shishir Sharma and PH Parekh for the Appellant
Dr NM Ghatate SV Deshpande for the Respondent
83 The Judgement of the Court was delivered by KN SAIKIA J
This appeal by Special Leave is from the Judgement of the High Court of Bombay dated 16th September 1976 in Special Civil Application N 2741 of 1971 upholding the Judgement of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
The suit land bearing Survey No 182 owned by Shankarlal Kunjilal was taken under Government management as per order of the Assistant Collector Jalgaon bearing No TEN
WS 946 dated 14121950 as the land was lying fallow for two consecutive years
The Mallatdar Raver was appointed as a Manager thereof under Section 45 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act  After assuming the management the land was leased out to the appellant Dhondu Choudhary by the Mamlatdar for a period of 10 years by an agreement of lease dated 7121951
The period of lease accordingly expired on 6121951
The period of lease accordingly expired on 6121961
However the management of the land was terminated by the Government by the Assistant Collector s order dated 2771963 and the possession thereof was ordered to be restored to the respondent landlord
There was nothing on the record to show that the lease which expired on 6121961 was extended by the Manager thereafter till the termination of management by order dated 2771963
The appellant claimed that he was paying rent to the Mamlatdar during the period of 7121961 to 2771963 and thus continued to a be tenant in respect of the land
He filed a Civil Suit against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge Raver who made a reference to the Mamlatdar Raver who held that the appellant continued to be tenant
The respondent s appeal to the Assistant Collector having failed he moved a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal  wherein the question arose whether the appellant s tenancy was subsisting on 2771963 and whether he had become the tenant in respect of the land since that date under the Act
Relying on a bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No 1077 of 1961 Ghambhir Lal Laxman Das vs Collector of Jalgaon decided on 20121962 wherein it was held that the person to whom lease was granted by the Manager of the land which was taken under Government management could not continue to be the tenant after the expiry of the period of 10 years without a fresh lease and that after the management was terminated by the 84 Government on expiration of the lease the tenancy under the lease could not be said to be subsisting on the date on which the management was terminated
The Tribunal held that the appellant could not continue as tenant since termination of the lease on 2771963
The Tribunal further held that since the land was taken under the Government management by the order of the Assistant Collector under Section 881 of the Act the provision s of Sections 1 to 87 were not applicable and the appellant therefore could not continue to be tenant after expiration of the period of lease on 6121961
The High Court in the Special Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having upheld the above finding of the Tribunal the appellant obtained Special Leave
The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr Shishir Sharma is that the appellant having continued payment of rent to Mamlatdar even after expiry of lease till the termination of management he continued to be a tenant which the landlord could not avoid on resumption of the land
Dr NM Ghatate the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant could by no means continue to be a tenant after his lease expired and no fresh lease was granted to him and more so after the management was terminated on 2771963
We find force in Dr Ghatate s submission
Admittedly the management of the land was assumed by the State Government under Section 65 of the Act
Section 65 deals with assumption of management of lands which remained unclutivated and says 65
1 If it appears to the State Government that for any two consecutive years any land has remained uncultivated or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his control the State Government may after making such inquiry as it thinks fit declare that the management of such land shall be assumed
The declaration so made shall be conclusive
2 On the assumption of the management such land shall vest in the State Government during the continuance of the management and the provision of Chapter IV shall mutatis mutandis apply to the said land 85 Provided that the manager may in suitable cases give such land on lease at rent even equal to the amount of its assessment Provided further that if the management of the land has been assumed under sub section 1 on account of the default of the tenant such tenant shall cease to have any right or privilege under Chapter II or III as the case may be in respect of such land with effect from the date on and from which such management has been assumed
 Admittedly the Manager was appointed under Section 45 of the Act Section 45 deals with vesting of estate in management and says 45
1 On the publication of the notification under section 44 estate the in respect of which the notification has been published shall so long as the management continues vest in the State Government
Such management shall be deemed to commence from the date on which the notification is published and the State Government shall appoint a Manager to be in charge of such estate
2 Notwithstanding the vesting of the estate in the State Government under sub section 1 the tenant holding the lands on lease comprised in the estate shall save as otherwise provided in this Chapter continue to have the same right and shall be subject to the same obligations as they have or are subject under the proceeding Chapters in respect of the lands held by them on lease
 Section 61 deals with termination of management and says 61
The State Government when it is of opinion that it is not necessary to continue the management of the estate by order published in the Official Gazette direct that the said management shall be terminated
On the termination of the said management the estate shall be delivered into the possession of the holder or if he is dead of any person entitled to the said estate together with any balances which may be due to the credit of the said holder
All acts done or purporting to be done by the Manager during the continuance of the management of the estate shall be binding on the holder or to any person to whom the possession of the estate has been delivered
 86 Thus on termination of the management the suit land in the instant case was to be delivered into the possession of the respondent holder and all acts done or purporting to be done by the Manager during the continuance of the management of the estate should be binding on the holder or on any person to whom the possession of the estate had been delivered
In the instant case the finding of the Courts below is that after expiry of the lease no fresh lease was granted by the Manager
In view of this finding the appellant s claim to have continued as the tenant even after expiry of the lease on 6121961 and till 2771963 the date of termination by paying rent for the period to the Mamlatdar would be of no avail in the absence of fresh lease after expiry of the 10 years lease on 6121961
The Tribunal followed the binding decision of the Bombay High Court holding that there was no lease in favour of the appellant and that by mere holding over he could not have continued the status of a tenant
This would be so because the Act does not envisage the Government as a landholder but only as Manager
While delivering back the land into the possession of the landholder it could not be burdened with any tenancy created or resulting while under management
Besides there could be no privacy between the landlord and the erstwhile tenant under Government in the matter of tenancy
Between the appellant and the respondent landlord therefore no question of the former continuing as tenant of the latter could arise after the land was reverted to the landholder
Mr Sharma s submission that the appellant was a deemed tenant is also not tenable
The appellant could not have been a deemed tenant under Section 4 or 4B of the Act inasmuch as Section 88 of the Act grants exemption inter alia to lands held on lease from the Government
It says 88
1 Save as otherwise provided in sub section2 nothing in the forging provisions of this Act shall apply a to lands belonging to or held on lease from the Government xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx d to an estate or land taken under management by the State Government under Chapter IV or section 65 except as provided in the said Chapter IV or section 65 as the case may be and in sections 66 80A 82 83 84 85 86 and 87 87 Provided that from the date on which the land is released from management all the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply thereto but subject to the modification that in the case of a tenancy not being a permanent tenancy which on that date subsists in the land xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx In Keshav Vithal Mahatre vs Arbid Ranchhod Parekh 1973 Bom
LR LXXXV 694 a learned Single Judge has held that a lease of land granted by a Manager under section 47 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 comes to an end with the termination of the management of the land by virtue of section 61 of the Act
If the tenant continues to remain on the land thereafter he would be cultivating it unlawfully as a trespasser and he cannot therefore claim to be a deemed tenant under section 4 of the Act
This is consistent with the decision in Ghambhir Lal s casesupra relied on by the Tribunal
Thus Sections 4 and 4B were not applicable during the period from expiry of the lease to the termination of management
In the result we find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed but without any order as to costs
VPR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Amendment Act 1956 1  62 490 Bom
XIII of 1956 which in further amending the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Bom
LXVII of 1948 Ought to distribute the ownership and control of agricultural lands in implementation of the Directive principles of State policy laid down by articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution
The impugned Act sought to distribut equitably the lands between the landholders and the tenants except where the landholder required the same for cultivation by himself by way of compulsory _Purchase of all surplus lands by tenants in possession thereof with effect from April 1 1957 called the tiller s day 
The basic idea underlying the Act was to prevent concentration of agricultural lands in the hands of the landholders
The Act thus being a legislation in respect of rights in and over land affected the relation between landlord and tenant and provided for the transfer and alienation of agricultural lands
The petitioners who were landholders as defined by section 29 of the Act contended that 1 the impugned legislation was beyond the competence of the State Legislature 2 that not being protected by article 31A of the Constitution it infringed articles 14 19 and 31 of the Constitution and 3 that it was a piece of colourable legislation vitiated in part by excessive delegation of legislative power to the State
On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the impugned legislation fell within Entry 18 in List 11 Of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution that provided for the extinguishment or modification of rights to estates and was as such protected by article 31A of the Constitution and that there was no excessive delegation of legislative power
Held that it was well settled that the heads of legislation specified in Entry 18 in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution should not be construed in a narrow and pedantic sense but should be given a large and liberal interpretation
There could therefore be no doubt that the impugned Act fell within the purview of Entry 18 in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the plea of legislative incompetence must fail
British Coal Corporation vs The King  United Provinces v 
Atiqa Begum and Navinchandra Mafatlal vs The Commissioner of Income tax Bombay City 1955 1 SCR 829 relied on
There could be no doubt that the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 was the existing law relating to land tenures in force in the State of Bombay within the meaning of article 31A2a of the Constitution and the word estate  as defined by section 25 Of the Code clearly applied not only to lands held by the various tenure holders of alienated lands but also to land holders and occupants of unalienated lands
There was no ambiguity in that definition and therefore no justification for putting a narrower construction on that word so as to mean the land holders of the former category alone and not of the latter even if there was any the wider meaning of the word was the one to be adopted in the context of the objective of the Act
491 Case law discussed
The word landholder  as defined in section 29 of the Act also made no distinction between alienated and unalienated lands and showed that the interest of such a landholder fell within the definition of estate  contained in section 25 of the Code
There was no warrant for the proposition that extinguishment or modification of any rights in estates as contemplated by article 31A1a of the Constitution must mean only what happened in the process of acquisition of any estate or of any rights therein by the State
The language of the Article was clear and unambiguous and showed that it treated the two concepts as distinct and different from each other
Sections 32 to 32R of the impugned Act clearly contemplated the vesting of the title in the tenure on the titter s day defeasible only on certain specified contingencies
They were designed to bring about an extinguishment or in any event a modification of the landlord s rights in the estate within the meaning of article 31A1a of the Constitution
The impugned Act therefore was not vulnerable as being violative of Arts14 19 and 31 of the Constitution
It would not be correct to contend that the sections merely contemplated a suspension of the landholders  right and not their extinguishment
Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court of Wards Ajmer   held inapplicable
Where the Legislature settled the policy and broad principles of the legislation there could be no bar against leaving matters of detail to be fixed by the executive and such delegation of power could not vitiate the enactment
In the instant case since the Legislature had laid down the policy of the Act in the preamble enunciated the broad principles in sections 5 and 6 and fixed the four criteria in section 7 itself the last of which had necessarily to be read ejusdem generis with the others it was not correct to say that the impugned Act by section 7 had conferred uncontrolled power on the State Government to vary the ceiling area or the economic holding or that section 7 was vitiated by an excessive delegation of legislative power to the State
Parshram Damodhar vs State of Bombay AIR 1957 Bom
257 disapproved
Dr N B Khare vs The State of Delhi   The State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Saykar 1952 SCR 284 and Pannalal Binjraj vs Union of India 1957 SCR 233 referred to