Case: Union Territory Of Goa, Daman And Diu And Anr Vs. Lakshmibai Narayan Patil Etc. Etc.Andsmt. Lakshmi Bai Patil

The Civil Appeals Nos. 1314-1318 of 1979 by certificate are directed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu declaring the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976, as unconstitutional. The respondents are landlords in Goa. The lands were in possession of the tenants who were cultivating the same and paying rent to the respondents. The respondents were divested of their title in the lands by the provisions of the impugned Act which came in force in 1976 vesting the same in the tenants. The respondents filed five writ applications in the court of the Judicial Commissioner challenging the validity of the Amendment Act. The writ petitions were allowed by the impugned judgment. It has been held that the act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and the protection of Article 31-A is not available as the scheme of the Act does not constitute agrarianIt has been contended on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners that the landlords in Goa are generally small landholders and their condition is not better than that of the tenants and in that view the Act divesting the landlords of their title in the land and vesting the same in the tenants suffers from the vice of illegal discrimination. A similar Act was earlier passed by the Maharashtra legislature also which has been found to be constitutionally valid. The writ petitioners have, before the court below, successfully argued that the decision in that case is not applicable inasmuch as the Maharashtra Act contains provisions fixing ceiling to which the other provisions are subject to, while there is not such restriction in the present Act. The result is that although the Maharashtra Act had to be upheld as a measure of agrarian reform and thus protected by Article 31-A of the Constitution, the present Act cannot be soDuring the pendency of these appeals the impugned Amendment Act along with the main Act were included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and the assent of the President was received on August 26, 1984. Smt. Lakshmibai Narayan Patil, the writ petitioner in the three of the cases in the court of Judicial Commissioner (respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 1314, 1315 and 1316 of 1979) has challenged the constitutional amendment as illegal and ultra vires by filing an application under Article 32 of the Constitution which has been numbered as Writ Petition No. 864 ofBy the impugned Amendment Act, Chapter II-A has been included in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the act), Chapter III has been deleted and some consequential changes have been made in some other sections. Chapter II-A deals with "Special rights and privileges of tenants" as indicated by the heading. Broadly speaking, by the provisions of Section 18-A of this chapter the land belonging to a landlord not in his cultivating possession on the tillers day gets transferred to the tenant-in-possession for a price to be paid to the landlord. The expression tenant has been given a larger meaning under the Act by Section 4. By the second proviso of Section 4 a sub-tenant cultivating any land on or after July 1, 1962 has to be deemed to be a lawfully cultivating tenant notwithstanding the fact that the creation of sub-tenancy might have been prohibited by any law, and the tenant prior to the creation of the sub-tenancy (who may be referred to as intermediary tenant) is not to be treated as a tenant. The price of the land in question has to be determined and the payment made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II-A. Separate provisions have been made with respect to special cases where tenant is a minor or has been evicted by the landlord before the tillers day. The provisions of section 18-J provide for the resumption and disposal of the land not purchased by the tenant by reason of the purchase being ineffective under Section 18-C or Section 18-H or due to the failure of the tenant to take steps under Section 18-B within time. A revenue officer described as Mamlatdar is vested with the power to dispose of such land in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of Section 18-J. Such land has to be disposed of in the order of priority, whereunder 75 per cent of such land is to be disposed of by sale to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and thereafter the remaining land to serving members of the Defence Forces of the country or ex-servicemen or freedom fighters who agree to cultivate the land personally. If the land still remains undisposed of, it first goes to agricultural labourers and thereafter to landless persons. If some of the land still remains available, it has to be sold to a co-operative farming society. Section 18-K puts a restriction on transfer of the land which the tenant acquires by purchase under the chapter. Only with the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar any transfer whether by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment can beIf the landowner is himself cultivating it, there being no tenant or a deemed tenant he continues to be in possession without any curtailment of his rights. On the other hand, in a case where the tenant after getting a tenancy from the landlord inducts another person as a sub-tenant who cultivates the same, the benefits of the impugned provisions go to him and not to the tenant. The object of the Amending Act is thus clearly to vest the land in the tiller. The right of any person to receive merely rent is taken away for a price. The respondents who are landlords, have challenged the Amendment Act whereby Chapter II-A has been inserted in the Act on the ground of illegal discrimination. The argument is that in absence of provisions for ceiling the impugned Act bestows undeserved benefit on the tenants at the cost of the landlords, without reference to the respective areas in their possession. The amendment was enforced as also the impugned judgment was delivered before the deletion of clause (f) of Article 19 (1) from the Constitution and one of the grounds which has been successfully urged before the High Court is based on Article 19(1)(f). So far as Article 31-A of the Constitution is concerned, the case of the respondents which has found favour with the court below is that the provisions of the impugned Amendment Act cannot be held to be a step by way of agrarian reform and, therefore, cannot have the protection of the article. This is the main thrust of the argument of Mr. R. F. Nariman in this Court also. He has strenuously contended that for extending the protection of Article 31-A(1)(a) to any particular law it is necessary that the law contains adequate measure against concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. It is claimed that fixation of ceiling is the heart and soul of agrarian reform without which it does notIt has been observed in the impugned judgment that from the transcripts of newspapers produced by the writ petitioners and the statements alleged to have been made by the late Chief Minister that there were very few big landholders in Goa, it can be assumed that the landlords in Goa are small holders of land. Certain statements made in the affidavit filed before the court were also referred to in this connection. An attempt was made in this Court also to urge that there could not be many big landlords in Goa, and therefore, their deprivation of the lands cannot be deemed to be a step towards fair distribution. It was contended that in may a case, a cultivating tenant in possession of lands under different landlords may be having far larger area of land than his landlords and there cannot be any justification in clothing such a tenant with title of the land at the cost of his comparatively poor landlords. The argument proceeded, that so far the holdings of the tenants are concerned, a necessity of placing ceiling on the holdings cannot be denied in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State stating that further legislation for that purpose was in contemplation. Mr. R. F. Nariman emphasised the fact that no such law has been brought in force till now. To the last part of the argument if was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the Amendment Act was struck down by the Judicial Commissioners court as ultra vires, further amendment in the Act by way of introducing provisions for ceiling had to await this Courts judgment in the present civil appeals

Reasoning:
9. Article 31-A(1)(a) declares that no law providing for "the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinction or modification of any such rights", shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. The Fifth Amendment Act has received the assent of the President as required by the first proviso. The expression estate is undisputedly applicable in the present case in view of the provisions of clause (2) of the said article. Although Article 31-A(1)(a) does not by express language restrict its application to a particular nature of law, it is now well settled that the protection of the Article is limited to the laws which serve the purpose of agrarian reform, and Mr. R. F. Nariman is right in relying upon the observations at page 901-F of the judgment in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. B. Kamble. The learned counsel has further urged that the other observations in this judgment support his main argument also that in absence of provisions for ceiling a statute cannot be held to be for agrarian reform. We are unable to agree. In that case the constitutional validity of the Act amending certain provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961 was under challenge and it was sought to be saved inter alia with the aid of Article 31-A. While discussing the scope of Article 31-A, the court at page 902-F relied upon the decision in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu in the following terms : (SCC p. 710, parathe case of Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu it was held while dealing with the provisions of Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act that the object and general scheme of the Act was to abolish intermediaries between the State and the cultivator and to help the actual cultivator by giving him the status of direct relationship between himself and the State. The Act, as such, in its broad outlines was held to be a measure of agrarian reform and protected by Article 31-A.As has been discussed above, the title to the land shall vest in the tiller and the landlord shall get the compensation. Earlier also his right to resume the land for personal cultivation was considerably restricted by the provisions of the 1964 Act. As a result of the impugned Amendment Act he has been divested of this limited right for a price, and the tiller shall no more be under a threat of dispossession. The impugned provisions must therefore be accepted as measure of land reform. We reject the argument of the respondents that in absence of provisions fixing ceiling on the area of land which can be held by a person a statute cannot be accepted as a measure of land reform. The Fifth Amendment Act is, therefore, entitled to the protection of Article 31-A and it cannot be struck down on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The judgment of the Judicial Commissioner declaring the Act as ultra vires is accordingly set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. Consequently it is not necessary to deal with the writ petition (W.P. No. 864 of 1988) filed in this Court under Article 32 challenging the inclusion of the impugned Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and the same is rejected