Case: Visweshwar Rao Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner and his ancestors have been owning and enjoying these properties in full proprietary right for several generations past. On the 5th April, 1950, the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly enacted an Act called the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. The Act received the assent of the President of India on the 22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on the 26th January, 1951, as Act I of 1951. By a notification in a gazette extraordinary issued on the 27th January, 1951, the Madhya Pradesh Government fixed 31st March, 1951. as the date of vesting of the estates under section 3 of the Act. The petitioner thus was to lose his estate and lands on the 31st March, 1951. On the 9th March, 1951, i.e., before the vesting date, he presented the present application to this court for the issue ofate writs against the Government prohibiting it from taking possession of his properties. It was alleged that the Madhya Pradesh Act, I of 1951, was unconstitutional and void and infringed the fundamental rights of thetioner in a variety ofr a proper appreciation of the ground on which the validity of the Act is being challenged, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and to state the facts which led to this enactment.Madhya Pradesh is a composite State, comprising the Central Provinces, Berar and the merged territories. By ane rulers of States and the Dominion of India dated the 15th December, 1947, certain territories which at one time were under the Indian States Agency and were held by these rulers were integrated with the Dominion. The integration actually took place on the 1st January, 1948. On the 1st August, 1949, the States were merged in the Madhya Pradesh. There were in all 106 estates in Madhya Pradesh as defined in section 2(3) of Act I of 1951 and held by zamindars. Most of the lands are owned by malguzars of mahals in the status of Malkan cabzaThe land system prevailing in Madhya Pradesh iszari (except in certain areas where the ryotwari system is in vogue), the malguzar being an intermediary between the State and the tiller. Land is also held on a variety of subordinate tenures by absolute occupancy tenants, occupancy tenants, ryots, thikedars, mafidars, ilaqadars, etc.Land revenue in Madhya Pradesh was last assessed under the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, II of 1917. The estate holders pay land revenue on the lands comprised in the estates at a concession rate. The payment is technically called tekoli. In 1939 there was an adhoc increase in the amount of tekoli by the Central Provinces Revision of Land Revenue Estates Act, I of 1939.On the 3rd September, 1946, the Central Provinces and Berar Legislative Assembly passed a resolution for the elimination of intermediaries between thee and the peasant. Soon after the passing of this resolution several laws were enacted, it is said, with a view to achieve this result, the impugned Act being the last of that series. In 1947, the Central Provinces Land Revenue Estates Act, XXV of 1947, was enacted. The revenuement, viz., tekoli, on the estates was, we are told,hanced in some places from thirty to fifty per cent. of the full jama and in others from forty to sixty per cent. In the same year was enacted the Central Provinces Landn Mahals Act, XXVI of 1947. The land assessment on malguzari villages was, it is alleged, raised to 75 per cent. from 45 to 50 per cent. of malguzari assets. This was done without recourse to a settlement. In 1948 came the Centrals and Berar Revocation of Exemptions Act, XXXVII of 1948, making persons exempted from payment of land revenue liable for it. This legislation, it is urged,sulted in the reduction of the net income of the proprietors to a large extent. On the 11th October, 1949, the impugned Act was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly. It was referred to a Select Committee on the 15th October, 1949; the Select Committee reported on the 9th March, 1950, the report was published on the 17th March, 1950, and was taken into consideration on the 29th March. 1950, by the Assembly. On the 30th March, 1950, the opposition moved for thelation of the Bill. The circulation motion was negatived on the 3rd April, 1950, and the Bill was discussed clause by clause and the clauses were passed between the 3rd of April and the 5th of April. On the 5th April, 1950, the member in charge of the Bill moved as follows :-Speaker Sir, I now move that the Central Provinces & Berar Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Bill, 1949 (No. 64 of 1949) as considered by the House be passed into law.e the Speaker said:Motion moved, that the Central Provinces & Berar Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Bill, 1949 (No. 64 of 1949) as considered by the House be passed into law,A number of speeches were made at the third reading stage. The opposition was in a hopeless minority. The trend of the speeches was of a laudatory character, each member hailing the Bill as a piece of great reform in the Madhya Pradesh land system. No motion of a dilatory nature was tabled and as a matter of fact there was no opposition whatsoever to the passing of the Bill. Some membersd the opinion that the provisions of the Act did not go far enough, others thought that the provisions as to compensation should have been more liberal, but there was none who was for rejecting the Bill as it stood. The report of the proceedings of the5th April, 1950, does not contain the note that the motion that the Bill be passed into law was carried.The omission of this note in the proceedings of the legislature has furnished a basis for the argument that the Bill was never passed into law. The proceedings wereed on the 21st June, 1950, and were signed by the Speaker on the 1st October, 1950. The originall that was submitted to the President for his assent was printed on the 29th April, 1950, and it bears on it the certificate of the Speaker dated the 10th May, 1950, stating that the Bill was duly passed by the legislature on the 5th April, 1950. This certificate was signed by the Speaker a considerable time ahead of his signing the proceedings. The Act, as already stated, received the assent of the President on the 22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on the 26th January, 1951, as Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951.Against the constitutionality of this Act a number of petitions were made in the High Court of Nagpur but they were all dismissed by that court on the 9th April, 1951, while this petition along with some others was pending in this Court.petitioner and his ancestors have been owning and enjoying these properties in full proprietary right for several generations past. On the 5th April, 1950, the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly enacted an Act called the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. The Act received the assent of the President of India on the 22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on the 26th January, 1951, as Act I of 1951. By a notification in a gazette extraordinary issued on the 27th January, 1951, the Madhya Pradesh Government fixed 31st March, 1951. as the date of vesting of the estates under section 3 of the Act. The petitioner thus was to lose his estate and lands on the 31st March, 1951. On the 9th March, 1951, i.e., before the vesting date, he presented the present application to this court for the issue ofate writs against the Government prohibiting it from taking possession of his properties. It was alleged that the Madhya Pradesh Act, I of 1951, was unconstitutional and void and infringed the fundamental rights of thetioner in a variety ofr a proper appreciation of the ground on which the validity of the Act is being challenged, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and to state the facts which led to this enactment.Madhya Pradesh is a composite State, comprising the Central Provinces, Berar and the merged territories. By anagreement of merger madee rulers of States and the Dominion of India dated the 15th December, 1947, certain territories which at one time were under the Indian States Agency and were held by these rulers were integrated with the Dominion. The integration actually took place on the 1st January, 1948. On the 1st August, 1949, the States were merged in the Madhya Pradesh. There were in all 106 estates in Madhya Pradesh as defined in section 2(3) of Act I of 1951 and held by zamindars. Most of the lands are owned by malguzars of mahals in the status of Malkan cabzaland system prevailing in Madhya Pradesh iszari (except in certain areas where the ryotwari system is in vogue), the malguzar being an intermediary between the State and the tiller. Land is also held on a variety of subordinate tenures by absolute occupancy tenants, occupancy tenants, ryots, thikedars, mafidars, ilaqadars, etc.Land revenue in Madhya Pradesh was last assessed under the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, II of 1917. The estate holders pay land revenue on the lands comprised in the estates at a concession rate. The payment is technically called tekoli. In 1939 there was an adhoc increase in the amount of tekoli by the Central Provinces Revision of Land Revenue Estates Act, I of 1939.On the 3rd September, 1946, the Central Provinces and Berar Legislative Assembly passed a resolution for the elimination of intermediaries between thee and the peasant. Soon after the passing of this resolution several laws were enacted, it is said, with a view to achieve this result, the impugned Act being the last of that series. In 1947, the Central Provinces Land Revenue Estates Act, XXV of 1947, was enacted. The revenuement, viz., tekoli, on the estates was, we are told,hanced in some places from thirty to fifty per cent. of the full jama and in others from forty to sixty per cent. In the same year was enacted the Central Provinces Landn Mahals Act, XXVI of 1947. The land assessment on malguzari villages was, it is alleged, raised to 75 per cent. from 45 to 50 per cent. of malguzari assets. This was done without recourse to a settlement. In 1948 came the Centrals and Berar Revocation of Exemptions Act, XXXVII of 1948, making persons exempted from payment of land revenue liable for it. This legislation, it is urged,sulted in the reduction of the net income of the proprietors to a large extent. On the 11th October, 1949, the impugned Act was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly. It was referred to a Select Committee on the 15th October, 1949; the Select Committee reported on the 9th March, 1950, the report was published on the 17th March, 1950, and was taken into consideration on the 29th March. 1950, by the Assembly. On the 30th March, 1950, the opposition moved for thelation of the Bill. The circulation motion was negatived on the 3rd April, 1950, and the Bill was discussed clause by clause and the clauses were passed between the 3rd of April and the 5th of April. On the 5th April, 1950, the member in charge of the Bill moved as follows :Speaker Sir, I now move that the Central Provinces & Berar Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Bill, 1949 (No. 64 of 1949) as considered by the House be passed into law.e the Speaker said:Motion moved, that the Central Provinces & Berar Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Bill, 1949 (No. 64 of 1949) as considered by the House be passed into law,A number of speeches were made at the third reading stage. The opposition was in a hopeless minority. The trend of the speeches was of a laudatory character, each member hailing the Bill as a piece of great reform in the Madhya Pradesh land system. No motion of a dilatory nature was tabled and as a matter of fact there was no opposition whatsoever to the passing of the Bill. Some membersd the opinion that the provisions of the Act did not go far enough, others thought that the provisions as to compensation should have been more liberal, but there was none who was for rejecting the Bill as it stood. The report of the proceedings of the5th April, 1950, does not contain the note that the motion that the Bill be passed into law was carried.omission of this note in the proceedings of the legislature has furnished a basis for the argument that the Bill was never passed into law. The proceedings wereed on the 21st June, 1950, and were signed by the Speaker on the 1st October, 1950. The originall that was submitted to the President for his assent was printed on the 29th April, 1950, and it bears on it the certificate of the Speaker dated the 10th May, 1950, stating that the Bill was duly passed by the legislature on the 5th April, 1950. This certificate was signed by the Speaker a considerable time ahead of his signing the proceedings. The Act, as already stated, received the assent of the President on the 22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on the 26th January, 1951, as Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951.t the constitutionality of this Act a number of petitions were made in the High Court of Nagpur but they were all dismissed by that court on the 9th April, 1951, while this petition along with some others was pending in this Court.Petitioner in Petition No. 237 is a malguzar of eighteen villages but owns no estate. Petitions Nos. 280 to 285 and 257 relate to merged territories. The petitioner in Petition No. 282 was ruler of a State (Jashpur) and the petition concerns his private properties. Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 283, 284 and 257 are Ilakadars and in Petitions Nos. 280 and 285 they are mafidars. Petitioner in Petition No. 281 is a Thikedar. i.e., revenue farmer of three villages. Mr. Swami reiterated the contention raised by Mr. Somayya that the Act was not duly passed by the legislature. For the reasons given in Petition No. 166 of 1951, I see no force in this contention. Mr. Swami also reiterated Mr.s contention that the legislation was not bona fide. For the reasons given in Petition No. a17, this contentionnot accepted. Mr. Swami vehemently argued that the Government has by this Act become a, that there is no public purpose behind the Act, that there is no change in the existing order of things, that the Act has achieved nothing new, the tenants remain as they were, the malikan cabza were also already in existence, that acquisition of that status by occupancy tenants was possible under existing statutes and that they had also the power of trans

Court's reasoning:
The certificate of the Speaker is conclusive on the point that the Bill was passed by the legislature (VideStatute Law, 4th Edn., p. 36). It seems to me that by an oversight it was not recorded in the proceedings that the motion was put to and passed by the House and the Speaker while signing the proceedings six months after the event failed to notice the error. There can be no doubt that the sense of the House on the 5, 1950, was for passing the Bill and there was no one present who was for rejectinge motion before the House was that the Bill beThe Speaker could not possibly have appended a certificate on a Bill that it was passed by the House if it had not been so passed. There are no grounds whatever for doubting the correctness of his certificate. In my opinion, the contention raised that the Bill was not passed into law fails and must be rejected.The Legislature of Madhya Pradesh consists of the Governor and the Legislative Assembly. It was said that even if the Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly, it was not assented to by the Governor but was straightaway sent to the President and that without the assent of the Governor the Bill could not become law despite the fact that it was assented to by the President and it was pointed out thate (3) of article 31 of the Constitution speaks of law being reserved for the consideration of the President and not merely a Bill. This argument, in my opinion, has not much force having regard to the terms and scope of article 200.The Governor under that article could assent to a Bill or could reserve it for the consideration of the President at his option. The Governor being empowered to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President and this having been done, it was for the President either to assent to the Bill or to withhold his assent. The President having given his assent, the Bill must be held to have been passed into law. It does not seem to have been intended that the Governor should give his assent to the Bill and make it ad law and then reserve it for thes consideration so that it may have effect.. Somayya pressed the point that the President could not perform both his functions under article 200 and article 31(4) concerning this Bill at one and the same time, that first the procedure laid down in Article 200 for the passing of the Bill into law should been followed, i.e., the Governor should have either assented to the Bill or should have reserved it for the consideration of the President, and if it was so reserved,, the President should then have given his assent and the Bill would then become law, that after the Bill had become law, the Governor should again have reserved this Bill for the consideration of the President as required by the provisions of article 31 (3) in order to make it effective law against the provisions of article 31 (2) and that if the President then gave his assent, the law so assented to could not be called in question in a court of law. It was said that only in case where this double procedure is followed that it could be said that the President had satisfied himself that the law did not contravene the provisions of article 31 (2). In my opinion, the argument is fallacious. It would be a meaningless formality for the President to give his assent to the same Bill twice over. I cannot see why the President cannot perform both the duties entrusted to him by articles 200 and 31 (3) and (4) at one and the same time. He is not disabled under the Constitution from applying his mind to such a Bill once and for all and to see whether it has to be passed into law and whether it fulfils the requirements of article 31 (2)19. In this context the word Legislature means the House or Houses of Legislature and does not include the Governor within its ambit. This word has not the same meaning in all the articles. In some articles it means the Governor as well as the Houses of Legislature, while in a number of other articles it only means the House or Houses of Legislature. Article 31(4) means that if any Bill contravening the provisions of clause (2)of article 31 is passed by the House or Houses of Legislature but is reserved for the consideration of the President and receives his assent, then it shall become law, not open to any objection on the ground of such contravention.This contention fails for the reasons given in my judgment in the Bihar case. Moreover, the compensation provided for in the impugned Act cannot be dubbed as illusory. All that can be said is that it is grossly inadequate and it is not the equivalent of the value of the property acquired, but this issue is not justiciable in view of the provisions of article 31 (4). This Bill was pending at the commencement of the Constitution, it was reserved for the consideration of the President and the President gave his assent to it. The conditions for the application of article 31(4) thus stand fulfilled. Besides the obstacle of article 31(4), two further hurdles, viz., of articlesB introduced by the amendments to the Constitution, stand in the way of the petitioner and bar an enquiry into the question of the quantum ofe contention that there is no public purpose behind the impugned Act has also to be repelled on the same reasoning as given by me in the Bihar case. The purpose behind the Act is to establish direct contact between tillers of the soil and the Government and to eliminate the intermediaries, as in the view of the Government this is for the welfare of the society as a whole. It is also the purpose of the Act to confer malik maqbuza status on occupancy tenants and improve their present position and to vest management of village affairs and cultivation in a democratic village body. It is too late in the day to contend that reform in this direction is not for general public benefit.The argument that the Act is bad inasmuch as it delegates essential legislative power to the executive is negatived for the reasons given in the BiharA point was raised that the constitutional amendments in articlesB could not affect theMr. Bindra, who appeared for the petitioner, placed reliance on the observations of Holmes C.J. in Communications Assns. v. Douds, viz., that the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital, not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth, and contended that if the Constitution of India was construed in the light of these observations, then despite the express provisions of article 31 (2) it would be found that there is something pervading it which makes the obligation to pay real compensation a necessary incident of the compulsory acquisition of property. It was said that the right to compensation is implied in entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and that article 31(2) does not confer the right but merely protects itIn my opinion, this argument is void of force. It was within the competence of the Government in exercise of its governmental power to enhance land revenue, to withdraw exemption of land revenue, wherever those had been granted, and to enact other laws of a similar character. There is no evidence whatsoever that all these enactments were enacted with a fraudulent design of defeating the provisions of payment of compensation contained in the Constitution. The Constitution had not even come into force by the time that most of these statutes were enacted.