Case: Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. And Ors Vs. S. B. Kamble And Ors

landless persons or poor peasants is an essential attribute of agrarian reform and that as the lands of the industrial undertakings are not to be distributed but have to be cultivated by the Farming Corporation owned by the State, the acquisition cannot be considered to be a measure of agrarian reform. We are not impressed by this argument. Acquisition of land held by industrial undertakings is not to be taken in isolation but as a part of the general scheme and object of the Act that there should be a ceiling on private holdings. While surplus lands of individuals are to be distributed, the legislature has made special provision in respect of land held by an industrial undertaking which had been cultivated for supplying raw material to the industrial undertaking. It has been provided in the case of such land that it should be cultivated by the Farming Corporation in an efficient manner so that the supply of raw material to the Industrial undertaking might not be affected. It is no doubt, true that distribution of acquired land among landless persons and poor peasants in a vast majority of cases is a part of the scheme of agrarian reform; the fact that in the case of some huge tract of land which is used for a particular purpose the statute in order to prevent its fragmentation and to subserve that purpose provides that it should be cultivated by a State owned farming corporation would not justify the inference that the statutory requirement in this respect is not a part of a general scheme of agrarian reform. Section 28-1AA does not operate in a vacuum. The Section has to be taken in its context and setting with the other provisions of the Act. If the provisions of the Act seek to remove economic imbalance by taking the surplus lands of holders in excess of a ceiling and if the provisions of the Act further contemplate that most of the lands after acquisition be distributed to poor peasants and landless persons, the fact that a few blocks of land because of their size and past use for cultivation of raw material for industrial undertakings are required under the provisions of the Act to be not fragmented, which would inevitably be the result if they were to be distributed like other lands acquired under the Act, but to be retained as compact blocks for being cultivated by, the farming corporation so that the industrial undertakings are not starved of the raw material, the last mentioned provision cannot be detached from the rest of the Act and struck down as being not a measure of agrarian reform. It is no doubt true that acquisition simpliciter of the land by the State to augment its resources and without specifying the purpose for which it is to be used after acquisition would not get the protection of Art. 31A. To decide the question of protection we must look at the general scheme of the statute containing provision for the acquisition, the object of the acquisition and the reasons which weigh for retaining the land with the State or its corporation and not distributing it among the landless persons and the poor peasants. The concept of agrarian reform, it needs to be emphasised, is not static and cannot always be put in a strait-jacket. With the change of times under the impact of fresh ideas and in the context of fresh situations, the concept of agrarian reform is bound to acquire new dimensions. A measure which has the effect of improving the rural economy or promoting rural welfare would be a part of agrarian reform Although in most of the cases, as already mentioned the agrarian reform would require distribution of surplus land among the poor peasants and landless persons living in the villages, situations might well arise where it would be in the interest of rural economy that any compact area of land instead of being fragmented by distribution should be preserved as one compact block and be cultivated by a State owned farming corporation. The fact that part of the acquired land would remain vested in the State Government or State-owned farming corporation would not militate against the object of agrarian reform if the continued vesting of the land in the Government or the Corporation is a part of a general of agrarian reform and there is no oblique deviation from the avowed purpose.In the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), part of the acquired land was to vest in the State Government for schools, playgrounds, dispensaries, hospitals, waterworks, tubewells and as the above vesting was a part of a general scheme of rural welfare, the statute providing for that vesting was upheld and afforded the protection of article 31A.Ancillary provisions to give full effect to a scheme of agrarian reform, it may be stressed, would also have the protection of Art. 31A.33. We may note that argument has also been advanced by the learned Attorney General regarding the locus standi of the appellants to file the petition giving rise to the present appeal. It is urged that the appellants have no locus standi to file the petition in respect of land measuring 10315 acres as unconditional possession thereof was delivered in May 1968. In the alternative, it is submitted that clause (5) of Sec. 21 of the impugned Act which was introduced by amending Act 27 of 1970 is severable from the other provisions of the amending Act and is in any case constitutionally valid. As land measuring 10315 acres in accordance with the above clause had already vested before the filing of the petition in the State Government the appellants had no locus standi to file petition in respect of that area of land. It is, in our opinion, not necessary to express an opinion on the above submissions of the Attorney General in view of our finding that the impugned provisions are protected by Article 31A of the Constitution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. We have given the matter our consideration and are unable to agree with the above conclusion of the High Court Articleabove article was inserted in the Constitution by the First Amendment. The object of this article is to give a blanket protection to the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule and the provisions of those Acts and Regulations against any cha1lenge to those Acts, Regulations or the provisions thereof on the ground that they are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by, Part III of the Constitution. The result is that howsoever violative of the fundamental rights may be the provisions of an Act or Regulation once the Act or Regulation is specified in the Ninth Schedule it would not be liable to be struck down on that score. This immunity against the above challenge would be available notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court or tribunal to the contrary. The effect of Article 31B, however, is not to prevent challenge to an enactment on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature which enacted it. It is also plain from the language of the article that the specification of an Act or Regulation would not prevent the competent legislature to repeal or amend it.The protection of Art. 31B can also not be extended to a new provision inserted as a result of amendment on the ground that it is ancillary or incidental to the provisions to which protection has already been afforded by including them in the Ninth Schedule. Article 31B carves out a protected zone. It has inserted Ninth Schedule in the Constitution and gives immunity to the Acts, Regulations and provisions specified in the said schedule from being struck down on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights even though they are violative of such rights. Article 3lB thus excludes the operation of fundamental rights in matters dealt with by those Acts, Regulations and provisions. Any provision which has the effect of making an inroad into the guarantee of fundamental rights in the very nature of things should be construed very strictly, and it would not, in our opinion, be permissible to widen the scope of such a provision or to extend the frontiers of the protected zone beyond what is warranted by the language of the provision. No Act, Regulation or provision would enjoy immunity and protection of Article 31B unless it is expressly made a part of the Ninth Schedule. The entitlement to protection being confined only to the Acts, Regulations and provisions mentioned in the Ninth Schedule, it cannot be extended to provisions which were not included in that schedule. This principle would hold good irrespective of the fact whether the provision to which entitlement to protection is sought to be extended deals with new substantive matters or whether it deals with matters which are incidental or ancillary to those already protected.17. We are fortified in the above conclusion by the previous decisions of this Court.It is now well established that before the protection of Art. 31A can be afforded to the acquisition of any land by the State, the acquisition should be for the purpose of agrarian reform.The following principles can be inferred from the decided cases in order to find whetheran impugned enactment for acquisition of land is protected by Article31A:1) Acquisition of land by the State in order to enjoy the protection of Article 31A should be for the purpose of agrarian reform. 2) Acquisition of land by taking it from a senior member of the family and giving it to a junior member is not a measure of agrarian reform.3) Acquisition of land for urban slum clearance or for a housing scheme in neighbourhood of a big city is not a measure of a agrarian reform.4) Acquisition of land by the State without specifying the purpose for which land is to be used is not a measure of agrarian reform.5) Scheme of rural development envisages not only equitable distribution of land but also raising of economic standards and bettering of rural health and social conditions in the villages. Provision for the assignment of land to a Panchayat for the use of the general community or for hospitals, schools, manure pits, tanning grounds enure for the benefit of the rural population and as such constitute a measure of agrarian reform.6) Provision for reservation of land for promotion of agriculture and for the welfare of agricultural population constitutes a measure of agrarian reform. Agrarian reform is wider than land reform.7) If the dominant and general purpose of the scheme is agrarian reform, the scheme may provide for ancillary provisions to give full effect to the scheme.8) A provision fixing ceiling area and providing for the disposal of surplus land in accordance with the rules is a measure of agrarian reform.It would appear from the preamble to amending Act 27 of 1970 and the affidavit of Shri I. G. Karandikar, Under Secretary to Government of Maharashtra that efforts to set up joint farming societies contemplated by Section 28 of the Act did not bear fruit in spite of the fact that the time for the setting up of those societies was extended.Conspectus of the different provisions of the impugned Act, in our opinion, goes to show that the main purpose of the Act was to prevent concentration of agriculture land in the hands of a few. A ceiling was consequently imposed regarding the extent of land which might be held by an individual. Surplus land was distributed in accordance with Section 27 of the Act. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of the impugned Act in so far as the above objects were concerned effectuated the object of agrarian reform. As regards lands which were held by the industrial undertakings for the purpose producing and providing raw material for the manufacture of goods by those undertaking the legislature made special provision in order to ensure that the acquisition of the aforesaid land did not affect adversely the production and supply of the raw material to the undertaking. The object was further to make full and efficient use of the land for agriculture and also if considered necessary to maintain the integrity of the area so acquired in one or more compact blocks. The legislature for this purpose initially made provision for the grant of the aforesaid lands to joint farming societies but as the proposal to set up these societies did not bear fruit the legislature made provision that the aforesaid lands be given for cultivation to the State Corporation. Section 28-1AA, in our opinion, was an integral part of a general scheme of the Act to bring about agrarian reform and, in our opinion, the impugned provisions of the Act, including Section 28-1AA, are protected by Article 3lA of theare not impressed by this argument. Acquisition of land held by industrial undertakings is not to be taken in isolation but as a part of the general scheme and object of the Act that there should be a ceiling on private holdings. While surplus lands of individuals are to be distributed, the legislature has made special provision in respect of land held by an industrial undertaking which had been cultivated for supplying raw material to the industrial undertaking. It has been provided in the case of such land that it should be cultivated by the Farming Corporation in an efficient manner so that the supply of raw material to the Industrial undertaking might not be affected. It is no doubt, true that distribution of acquired land among landless persons and poor peasants in a vast majority of cases is a part of the scheme of agrarian reform; the fact that in the case of some huge tract of land which is used for a particular purpose the statute in order to prevent its fragmentation and to subserve that purpose provides that it should be cultivated by a State owned farming corporation would not justify the inference that the statutory requirement in this respect is not a part of a general scheme of agrarian reform. Section 28-1AA does not operate in a vacuum. The Section has to be taken in its context and setting with the other provisions of the Act. If the provisions of the Act seek to remove economic imbalance by taking the surplus lands of holders in excess of a ceiling and if the provisions of the Act further contemplate that most of the lands after acquisition be distributed to poor peasants and landless persons, the fact that a few blocks of land because of their size and past use for cultivation of raw material for industrial undertakings are required under the provisions of the Act to be not fragmented, which would inevitably be the result if they were to be distributed like other lands acquired under the Act, but to be retained as compact blocks for being cultivated by, the farming corporation so that the industrial undertakings are not starved of the raw material, the last mentioned provision cannot be detached from the rest of the Act and struck down as being not a measure of agrarian reform. It is no doubt true that acquisition simpliciter of the land by the State to augment its resources and without specifying the purpose for which it is to be used after acquisition would not get the protection of Art. 31A. To decide the question of protection we must look at the general scheme of the statute containing provision for the acquisition, the object of the acquisition and the reasons which weigh for retaining the land with the State or its corporation and not distributing it among the landless persons and the poor peasants. The concept of agrarian reform, it needs to be emphasised, is not static and cannot always be put in a strait-jacket. With the change of times under the impact of fresh ideas and in the context of fresh situations, the concept of agrarian reform is bound to acquire new dimensions. A measure which has the effect of improving the rural economy or promoting rural welfare would be a part of agrarian reform Although in most of the cases, as already mentioned the agrarian reform would require distribution of surplus land among the poor peasants and landless persons living in the villages, situations might well arise where it would be in the interest of rural economy that any compact area of land instead of being fragmented by distribution should be preserved as one compact block and be cultivated by a State owned farming corporation. The fact that part of the acquired land would remain vested in the State Government or State-owned farming corporation would not militate against the object of agrarian reform if the continued vesting of the land in the Government or the Corporation is a part of a general of agrarian reform and there is no oblique deviation from the avowed purpose.We may note that argument has also been advanced by the learned Attorney General regarding the locus standi of the appellants to file the petition giving rise to the presentis, in our opinion, not necessary to express an opinion on the above submissions of the Attorney General in view of our finding thatthe impugned provisions are protected by Article 31A of the