Case: Fida Ali And Others Vs. State Of Jammu And Kashmir

The petitioners are landowners in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and their grievance is that by the impugned Act they along with a large number of similar land-owners have been rendered landless. They further allege that the amount intended to be paid as compensation is illusory and the Act is, therefore, of a confiscatory nature. They also allege that conclusion of an orchard from the definition of land under Section 2 (4) of the Act is motivated and designed in the interests of highly placed influential persons in the State who own such orchards. By taking an additional ground, they also aver that the Act is not saved by the provisions of Article 31A of the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir since it is not a piece of legislation bearing on agrarian reform.2. The respondent has denied the above avertnents and other allegations in the petition by means of an affidavit affirmed by the Special Revenue Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is claimed that the Act is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution and is immune from challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14. 19 and 31 of the Constitution. According to the respondent the Act is passed in order to ensure better production avoiding concentration of means of production in the hands of a few and to annihilate the exploitation of the peasantry. With regard to the objection regarding compensation, it is stated that the minimum rate of compensation has been fixed and the same is not illusory. It is further stated that the Government is in the process of framing rules for the mode of paying compensation and the instalments of payment of the compensation would certainly be reasonable.

Court's reasoning:
13.From a review of the foregoing provisions it is obvious that the Act contains a clear programme of agrarian reforms in taking stock of the land in the State which is not in personal cultivation (section 3) and which though in personal cultivation is in excess of the ceiling area (section 4). A ceiling area is fixed for land or orchards or both measuring 12 1/2 standard acres. After the land vests in the State, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, a provision is made for disposal of the surplus land in accordance with the rules.14. The main focus of the act is to see that the tillers, who form the back-bone of the agricultural economy, are provided with land for the purpose of personal cultivation subject to the ceiling provision even in their case. The Act makes effective provisions for creating a granary of land at the disposal of the State for equitable distribution, subject to the limit, amongst the tillers of the soil and even the owners who would make personal cultivation of the same within the meaning of the Act. In the nature of things it is imperative that a ceiling area has to be fixed and those who have so far enjoyed land in large tracks mostly without personally cultivating the same, are required to share with others who have no land of their own but are genuine tillers of the soil. Even so, no one is allowed to own more than the ceilingdo not see any justification for the comment, adverted to above, that there is any discrimination in favour of the orchard-owners in not including land which was an orchard on the first day of September, 1971 within the definition of land under the Act since orchard is reckoned along with the land for the purpose of determination of the ceiling area under the Act. Further Chapter IV deals specifically with orchards and under Section 25 a levy of annual tax is imposed even in the case of orchards in excess of 12 1/2 standard acres. The respective definitions of land and orchard under the Act clearly permit of some special treatment to orchards in view of the scheme of the entire Act. Since land under the Act has an intimate nexus with purposes subservient to agriculture or pasture, there is reason for excluding orchard which is a compact area having fruit trees grown thereon in such number that they preclude it from being used for any other agricultural purpose. It is common knowledge that orchards have special significance in the State with which we are concerned. We also do not fail to notice that u/S. 4(2) of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act (Act 17 of 2007) (1950 A.D) extinction of the right of ownership u/S. 4(1) of that Act had not been made applicable to orchards. No motive can be attributed to the legislature in the choice of legislation within its constitutional competence. We, therefore, do not find any merit whatsoever in the objection on the score of motive or that there is any unreasonable discrimination in favour of the orchard-owners as such.17. On the other hand, the predominant object underlying the provisions of the Act is agrarian reforms. Agrarian reforms naturally cannot take the same pattern throughout the country. Besides the availability of land for the purpose, limited in scope in the nature of things, the scheme has to fit in with the local conditions, variability of climate, rain-fall, peculiarity of terrain, suitability and profitability of multiple crop patterns, vulnerability to floods and so many other factors in formulating a scheme of agrarian reforms suitable to a particular State. While a modest beginning is made with the land at disposal, modern methods of mechanisation and other improvements can be resorted to with the help of the State machinery available to the tillers of the soil. Such details can be worked out gradually by various processes in the course of implementation of the provisions of the Act and the rules which definitely provide sufficient elasticity. We are of opinion that the impugned Act has been passed with the definite object of agrarian reforms and cannot be successfully challenged on the score of violation of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 31 in view of the provisions of Article 31A. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.