s 1 7 8 10 53 and 76 of 1963
Petitions under Art 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
RV section Mani and K R Shama for the petitioner in WP Nos 1 and 76 of 1963
R V section Mani and T R Y Sastri for the petitioner in WP Nos 7 8 10 and 53
AV Ranganadham Chetty and A Y Rangam for the respondent in the petitions
IN Shroff for the interveners Nos 1 and 5 in all the petitions
M C Setalvad N section Bindra and R H Dhebar for inter vener No 2 in WP No 1 of 1963
C P Lal for intervener No 3 in WP No 1 of 1963
R H Dhebar for intervener No 4 in WP No 1 of 1963
section V Gupte Additional Solicitor General N section Bindra and R H Dhebar for intervener No 6 in WP No 1 of 1963
83 March 9 1964
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J
These six petitions under article 32 of Constitution raise a common question about the constitution ality of the Madras Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act No 58 of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act which was assented to by the President on April 13 1962 and came into force on publication in the Fort St George Gazette on May 2 1962
The constitutionality of the Act is attacked on the ground that it violates articles 14 19 and 312 of the Constitution
It is not necessary to set out in full the attack made on the constitutionality of the Act in these petitions
It will be enough if we indicate the two main attacks on the constitutionality of the Act under article 14
The first of these is with respect to section 5 of the Act which lays down the ceiling area
The second is on section 50 of the Act read with Sch
III thereof which provides for compensation
It is urged that the Act is not protected under article 31 A of the Constitution and is therefore open to attack in case it violates article 14 19 or 31
The petitioners in this connection rely on the judgment of this Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman vs State of Kerala1
Before we consider the two main attacks on the constitu tionality of the Act we may briefly indicate the scheme of the Act
Chapter 1 is preliminary Section 3 thereof provides for various definitions some of which we shall refer to later
Chapter 11 deals with fixation of ceiling on land holdings
Section 5 thereof fixes the ceiling area
The other sections provide for determining surplus land and s18 provides for the acquisition of surplus land which vests in the Government free from all encumbrances
Chapter III provides for ceiling on future acquisition and restriction on certain transfers
Chapter IV provides for the constitution and functions of the land board
Chapter V provides for the constitution and functions of the sugar factory board
Chapter VI provides for compensation
Section 50 thereof read with Sch
III lays down the mode for determining compensation for the land acquired by the Government and other ancillary matters
Chapter VII provides for survey and settlement of lands in the transferred territory which came to the State of Madras by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956
Chapter VIII provides for cultivating tenants  ceiling area
Chapter IX provides for exemption of certain lands from the application of the Act
Chapter X provides for land tribunals and Chapter XI for appeals and revision
Chapter XII provides for certain penalties and procedure while Chapter XIII provides for disposal of land acquired by the Government under the Act
Chapter XIV deals with miscellaneous provisions including s110 which provides for the framing of rules 1 1962 Suppl
1 SCR 829
84 The main purpose of the Act is to provide for a ceiling on land holdings for determining surplus land which would be acquired by Government and for payment of compensation therefor
The Act is applicable to agricultural land as defined in section 322 and is mainly concerned with persons holding lands in ryotwari settlement or in any other way subject to payment of revenue direct to the Government
It is not in dispute that the Act is not protected under article 31 A of the Constitution and it is in this background that we shall consider the attack based on article 14 on the two main provisions of the Act relating to ceiling area under section 5 and compensation under section 50 read with Sch
III of the Act
It is first necessary to read certain definitions in s 3
Section 314 defines family as follows family in relation to a person means the person the wife or husband as the case may be of such person and his or her i minor sons and unmarried daughters and ii Minor grandsons and unmarried grand daughters in the male line whose father and mother are dead
 It is unnecessary to refer to the explanation of section 314 for present purposes
Section 3 34 is in these terms person  includes any trust company family firm society or association of individuals whether incorporated or not
 Section 3 45 is as follows  surplus land  means the land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area and declared to be surplus land under sections 12 13 or 14
 Section 5 is in these terms 5
1 a Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII the ceiling area in the case of every person and subject to the provisions of sub sections 4 and 5 and of Chapter VIII the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members shall be 30 standard acres b The ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of more than five members shall subject to the provisions of sub sections 4 and 5 and of Chapter VIII be 30 standard acres together with an additional 5 standard acres for every member of the family in excess of five
2 For the purposes of this section all the lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be held by the family
85 3 a In calculating the extent of land held by a member of a family or by an individual person the share of the member of the family or of the individual person in the land held by an undivided Hindu family a Marumakkattayam tarwad an Aliyasanthana family or a Nambudiri Illom shall be taken into account
b In calculating the extent of land held by a family or by an individual person the share of the family or of the individual person in the land held by a firm society or association of individuals whether incorporated or not or by a company other than a non agricultural company shall be taken into account
Explanation For the purposes of this section a the share of a member of a family or of an individual person in the land held by an undivided Hindu family a Marumakkattayam tarwad an Aliyasanathana family or a Nambudiri Illom and b the share of a family or of an individual person in the land held by a firm society or association of individuals whether incorporated or not or by a company other than a non agricultural company shall be deemed to be the extent of land i which in case such share is held on the date of the commencement of this Act would have been allotted to such member person or family had such land been partitioned or divided as the case may be on such date or ii which in case such share is acquired in any manner whatsoever after the date of the commencement of this Act would be allotted to such member person or family if a partition or division were to take place on the date of the preparation of the draft statement under sub section 1 of section 10 4    It is unnecessary to consider the rest of section 5 for present purposes
The attack on section 5 1 is that it is hit by article 14 inasmuch as it denies equality before the law or equal protection of law to persons similarly situate and reliance is placed in this connection on the decision of this Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman1
In that case this Court was considering the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 86 1962 Suppl
1 SCR 829
Kerala Act
The argument is that as in the Kerala Act so in the present Act the word family has been given an artificial definition which does not conform to any kind of natural families prevalent in the State namely Hindu undivided family Marumakkattayam family Aliyasanathana family or Nambudiri Illom and that a double standard has been fixed in section 51 in the matter of providing ceiling
It is therefore urged that the ratio of that decision fully applies to the present Act
Therefore section 51 should be struck down as violative of article 14 in the same manner as section 58 of the Kerala Act was struck down
We are of opinion that this contention is correct and the ratio of that case applies with full force to the present case
It was observed in that case that where the ceiling is fixed   by a double standard and over and above that the family has been given an artificial definition which does not correspond with a natural family as known to personal law there is bound to be discrimination resulting from such a provision
In the present case also family has been given an artificial definition as will immediately be clear on reading
314 which we have set out above
It is true that this definition of family in section 314 is not exactly the same as in the Kerala Act
Even so there can be no doubt that the definition of the word family in the present case is equally artificial
Further in the Kerala Act section 58 fixed a double standard for the purpose of ceiling in the present case section 51a fixes a double standard though there is this distinction that in section 51 the same ceiling is fixed in the case of a person as in the case of a family consisting of not more than five members namely 30 standard acres while in the Kerala Act the ceiling fixed for a family of not more than five was double that for an adult unmarried person
But that in our opinion makes no difference in substance
The provision of section 51 results in discrimination between persons equally circumstanced and is thus violate of article 14 of the Constitution
This will be clear from a simple example of an undivided Hindu family which we may give
Take the case of a joint Hindu family consisting of a father two major sons and two minor sons and assume that the mother is dead
Assume further that this natural family has 300 standard acres of land
Clearly according to the personal law if there is a division in the family the father and each of the four sons will get 60 standard acres per head
Now apply section 51 to this family
The two major sons being not members of the family because of the artificial definition given to family in section 314 of the Act will be entitled to 30 standard acres each as individuals and the rest of their holdings ie 30 standard acres in the case of each will be Surplus land
But the father and the two minor sons being an artificial family as defined in section 314 will be entitled to 30 87 standard acres between them and will thus lose 150 standard acres which will become surplus land
This shows clearly how this double standard in the matter of ceiling read with the artificial definition of family will result in complete discrimination between these five members of a natural family
Under the Hindu law each member would be entitled to onefifth share in the 300 standard acres belonging to the family
Under the Act however the two major sons will keep 30 standard acres each while the father and the two minor sons together will keep 30 standard acres which work out to 10 standard acres each
The two major sons will thus lose 30 standard acres each while the father and the two minor sons will lose fifty standard acres each
No justification has been shown on behalf of the State for such discriminatory treatment resulting in the case of members of a joint Hindu family nor ire we able to understand why this discrimination which clearly results from the application of section 5 1 of the Act is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution
Examples can be multiplied with reference to joint Hindu families which would show that discrimination will result on the application of this provision
Similarly we are of opinion that discrimination will result in the case of Marumakkattayam family Aliyasanthana family and a Nambudiri Illom particularly in the case of the former two where the husband and wife do not belong to the same family
We are clearly of opinion that as in the case of section 58 of the Kerala Act so in the case of section 5 1 of the Act discrimination is writ large on the consequences that follow from section 51
We therefore hold that section 51 is violative of the fundamental right enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution
As the section is the basis of Chapter 11 of the Act the whole Chapter must fall along with it
Next we come to the provisions as to compensation contained in section 50 read with Sch
III of the Act
Here again we are of opinion that the decision of this Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman s1 case fully applies to the scheme of compensation provided in the Act which is as discriminatory as was the scheme in the Kerala Act
Learned counsel for the respondent however contends that Sch III does not provide for any cut in the purchase price as was the case in the Kerala Act and therefore the provisions in the Act are not discriminatory
If we look at the substance of the matter however we find that there is really no difference between the provisions for compensation in the Kerala Act and the provisions in respect thereof in the Act though the provisions in the Act are differently worded
What was done in the Kerala Act was to arrive at the figure of compensation on certain principles and a cut was then imposed on the figure thus arrived at and this cut pro gressively increased by slabs of Rs 15000
In the present 1962 Suppl
1 SCR 829
88 case  a converse method has been adopted and the provision is that first the net annual income is arrived at and thereafter compensation is provided for slabs of Rs 5000 each of net income
For the first slab of Rs 5000 the compensation is 12 times the net annual income for the second slab of Rs 5000 it is II times for the third slab of Rs 5000 it is ten times and thereafter it is nine times
Let us now work out this slab system
Take four cases where the net annual income is respectively Rs 5000 Rs10000 Rs 15000 and Rs 20000
The firstperson whose net annual income is Rs 5000 will get Rs60000 as compensation the second person whose net annualincome is Rs 10000 will et Rs 115000 the third personwith a net annual income of Rs 15000 will get Rs 165000 and the person with a net annual income of Rs 20000 will et Rs 210000
If the same multiplier had been applied as in the case of the first slab of Rs 5000 to the other three slabs also these persons would have got compensation of Rs 120000 Rs 180000 and Rs 240000
This will show that in effect there is a cut of about 4 per cent on the total compensation which corresponds to the purchase price in the Kerala Act in the case of a person with a net annual income of Rs 10000 of about 8 per cent in the case of a person with a net annual income of Rs 15000 and about 12 per cent in the case of a person with a net annual income of Rs 20000
Though the manner of arriving at the total com pensation is ostensibly different from that provided in the Kerala Act its effect is the same namely as the total net income goes up after the first slab of Rs 5000 there is a progressive cut in the total compensation just as was the case in the Kerala Act
The argument that the cut is justified on the same basis as higher rates of income tax on higher slabs of income has already been rejected by this Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman s case1
Therefore for the reasons given in that case we are of opinion that the provisions contained in section 50 read with Sch
III of the Act with respect to compensation are discriminatory and violate article 14 of the Constitution
Sections 5 and 50 are the pivotal provisions of the Act and if they fall then we are of opinion that the whole Act must be struck down as unconstitutional
The working of the entire Act depends on section 5 which provides for ceiling and section 50 which provides for compensation
If these sections are unconstitutional as we hold they are the whole Act must fall
We therefore allow the petitions and strike down the Act as unconstitutional
The petitioners will get their costs from the State of Madras one set of hearing fee
Petitions allowed
1 1962 Suppl
1 SCR 829


Summary:
The constitutionality of the Madras Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act 1961 was attacked on the ground that it violated articles 14 19 312 of the Constitution
Held i The provisions of section 51 of the Act result in discrimination between persons equally circumstanced and are thus violative of article 14 of the Constitution
As this section is the basis of Chapter II of the Act the whole chapter must fall along with it
The ratio of Karimbil Kunhikoman vs State of Kerala 1962 Supp 1 SCR 829 applies with full force to the present case
iiThe provisions in section 50 read with Sch
III of the Act with respect to compensation are discriminatory and violate article 14 of the Constitution
Karimbil Kunhikoman vs State of Kerala 1962 Supp
SCR 829 followed
iiiSs
5 and 50 are the pivotal pro visions of the Act and as they fall the whole Act must be struck down as unconstitutional