Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=5228
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 05:45:35
Document Index: 286152491

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 31', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 32', 'art.\t226', 'art. 31', 'art. 13', 'art. 32', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 13', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'Art.\t31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art.\t31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31']

STATE OF KERALA & ANR versus THE GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING WVG. CO. LTD.
1973 AIR 2734	1974 SCR (1) 671 1973 SCC (2) 713
STATE OF KERALA & ANR V. THE GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING WVG. CO. LTD. [1973] RD-SC 167 (18 September 1973)
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
CITATION: 1973 AIR 2734	1974 SCR (1) 671 1973 SCC (2) 713
F	1974 SC1522	(3) RF	1975 SC1193	(20) RF	1976 SC2237	(21) D	1977 SC 121	(10,11) RF	1977 SC 915	(36) R	1978 SC 803	(33) R	1979 SC 621	(28,29) F	1980 SC1285	(12,27,31,44,45) RF	1980 SC1762	(5,6) E	1981 SC 234	(100) RF	1989 SC1485	(12) D	1990 SC 123	(37) E	1990 SC1747	(11) RF	1992 SC 248	(52)
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 31A-The Kerala Private Forests	(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971-Act if entitled to the protection of article 31A-Private forest held in Janman	right-If necessary to show they are	agricultural lands within sub. clause (iii) of article	31A-Agrarian Reform, meaning.
The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act	(Act 26 of 1971) purported to acquire forest lands held on Janman right,	without payment of compensation, for implementing a scheme of agrarian reform by assigning lands on registry or by way	of lease to the poorer sections of the rural agricultural population. A full bench of the	Kerala	High Court (Reported in A.I.R. 1973, Kerala 63) held that	the provisions of the Act were not protected by article 31-A of the Constitution and accordingly	declared the	Act unconstitutional and void. The High Court concluded	that forest	lands in the State of Kerala could not generally be regarded as agricultural lands and, therefore, could not be the subject of agrarian reform and that the scheme of agrarian reform envisaged by the Act was not real or genuine but only illusory. The appeals and the petitions concerned the question	whether the Act could qualify for	the protection of article 31A(1) of the Constitution. It	was contended on behalf of the State of Kerala that what is included in the expression 'estate' is specified in	sub.
clauses	(i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (2) of	article	31A and, since the sub-clauses are disjunctive it would be enough	for the State to show that the law related to	land covered by an " estate" falling in at least one of the	sub- clauses, that	since private forests were held in janman right they would be an 'estate' within the meaning of	sub- clause	(i) and that if the law envisaged a	measure of agrarian reform it was not necessary	for the State to establish additionally that forest lands were similar lands described in sub-clause (iii), that is to say,	lands	held for purposes of agriculture	or for	purposes ancillary thereto.
The petitioners contended that private forests could not be converted into agricultural lands by a mere legislative flat contained in the Preamble of the Act, because, forest lands are lands in which forests grow spontaneously and naturally without	human effort or skill and are quite distinct	from agricultural lands which, however defined, must contain	the element of tilling the soil for sowing and planting. It was pointed out that in sub-clause (iii) of Article 31A (2)	(a) a forest land may be regarded as an agricultural land	only when that land is held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto.	Assuming that forest lands were 'estate'	within	the definition, it was further contended that their acquisition was not for	implementing any scheme of agrarian reform, but for a collateral purpose' namely,	to increase the revenue of the State by exploiting the forest wealth.
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the petitions,
HELD : that the Act was protected by Article 31A(1) of	the Constitution.
(1)The forest lands in the State of Kerala have attained a peculiar character owing to their geography and climate	and the evidence available shows that vast areas of these forests are still capable of supporting a large agricultural population. They are agricultural lands in the sense	that they can be prudently and profitably exploited	for nature stated	in the Preamble that the private merely wanted to convey	that they are prudently and profitably exploited 3- 392SCI/74 agricultural lands in the senses. It is manifest that when the legislature are agricultural land, they lands which by and large could be prudently and profitably for agricultural purposes.	[682H, 683C] 672 V.Venugopala Varma Rajaa v. Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala [1969] K.L.T. 320, relied on.
(ii)The	private forests being held in Janmam	right,	and Janman	right being an 'estate"are liable to be acquired by the State under article 31A(1)(a) as a necessary step in the implementation	of agrarian reform. Section 3 of the	im- pugned Act vests the ownership and possession of all private forests	in the State.	Therefore, they would	attract	the protection of article 31A(1).	It would not be, in such a case, necessary to further examine if the lands so vested in the government are agricultural lands failing	within sub- clause (iii).	[684C] Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and others v. The State of Madras	and others, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887, State of U.P. v.
Raja Anand Brahma Shah, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 362 and Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1972] 2 S.C.C.
133, referred to.
(iii)The Act envisages a scheme of agrarian reform. In statutes of this nature provision can only be generally made to indicate the broad details of the scheme for agrarian reform and that is what is done in the Act. The High Court, has not given any substantial reasons for coming to	the conclusion that the scheme of agrarian reform is a "teasing illusion and a promise in unreality". [684F, 685C] Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 133 distinguished.
Kannan	Devan Hills Produce v. The State of	Kerala	and another, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 218, applied.
(iv)The	Act cannot be impugned as a piece of colorable legislation. The question really is, in the first place, of the competence of the legislature to pass the impugned	Act and, in the second, whether the Act is constitutional in the sense that it is protected by article 31A(1). [687D] (v)It is presumed that the legislature knows the needs	of its people and will balance the present advantages against possible future disadvantages.	If there is pressure on land and the legislature feels that forest lands in	some areas can be	conveniently,	and without much damage to	the community as a whole, utilized for	settling a large proportion of the agricultural population, it is perfectly open,	under the constitutional powers vested in	the legislature, to make a suitable law; and if	the law is constitutionally valid this Court can hardly strike it	down on the ground that in the long run the legislation instead of turning out to be a boon will turn out to be a curse.
[687G] (vi)An	agreement of	the Government	cannot preclude legislation on	the subject. The High	Court	has rightly pointed out that surrender by the	Government of	its legislative powers to be used for public good cannot avail the company or operate against the Government as equitable estoppel. [688C] Per Bhagwati & Krishna Iyer	JJ :	(Concurring) :	The technology of agrarian reform for a developing country which traditionally lives in its villages envisages the national programmes of transmuting rural life from feudal medivealism into equal, affluent modernism a wide	canvas	overflowing mere improvement of agriculture and reform of the	land system.	Article 31A(2)(iii) itself, by referring to	land for pasture and sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators, agricultural labourers and village artisans, gives clear hints of agrarian wellbeing being pivotal to land reform in its larger legitimate connotation.
Agrarian reform is more humanist than mere land reform	and, scientifically	viewed,	covers	not merely abolition	of intermediary tenures,	zamindaris and	the like but	re- structuring of	village life itself taking in its broad embrace	the socio-economic regeneration of	the rural population. The Indian Constitution is a social instrument with an economic mission and the sense and sweep of	its provisions must be, gathered by judicial statesmen on	that seminal footing. Also, 'it is arguable that the elimiantion of ancient janamam may per se be regarded as possessing	the attribute of agrarian reform, because, to wipe	out feudal vestiges from	our countryside and to streamline	land ownership are preliminaries to the projection of a socialis- tic order which Part IV and art. 31A of the	Constitution strive	to create. However, this Court has held that a scheme of agrarian reform is essential, apart from 673 taking over of fanmam rights to, make the law valid. In the present	case a concrete agrarian project is presented by section	10 of the Forest Act.	Once it is accepted	that developmental orientation and distributive justice are	part of and inspire activist by agrarian reform, its sweep	and reach must extend to	cover	the needs of	the village community as well. What programme of agrarian reform should be initiated to satisfy the requirement of rural uplift in a particular community under the prevailing circumstances is a matter	for legislative judgment. The sole issue for	the Court is whether it is in fact a scheme of agrarian reform, and if it is, the prudence or folly thereof falls outside the orbit of judicial review. In ascertaining whether	the impugned enactment outlines a blue-print for agrarian reform the Court will look to the substance of the statutory proposal and not its mere outward form.	The. Court should not be too gullible to accept a scheme of agrarian reform when it is nothing but a verbal subterfuge, but at the	same time the Court should not be too astute to reject such a scheme	because it is not satisfied with the wisdom of	the scheme	or its technical soundness. It would not be enough merely to say that the income of the property acquired is to be utilised for purpose of agrarian reform. The property itself	must be acquired for carrying out such a reform.
This requirement is satisfied in the present case. If	the State, for ulterior ends, prevaricates or betrays the scheme by non-implementation or mis-implementation, an aggrieved party may seek releif through a judicial post audit. [692 G, 693 C, E] Once it is found that the legislative area is barricaded by Art. 31A it cannot be breached by Arts. 14, 19 and 31	and judicial break-in is constitutionally interdicted. But, at the same time, Art. 31A is no charter of legislative freedom to refuse compensation altogether in every case. The Court may not strike down a statute for non-payment	of compensation but the legislature is expected, except in exceptional socio-historical setting to provide just payment for the deprived persons. To exclude judicial review is not to black out the beneficient provisions of Arts. 14, 19	and
31. May be the present legislation dealing with extensive antiquated janmam rights relates to the	exceptional category. However this is an area where not the court	but the elector is the proper corrective instrument. [695G] Kochuni's case, [1960].3 S.C.R. 887, Ranjit Singh's case, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 82; 94, Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, [1959]	Supp.	1 S.C.R. 489, Raja Anand's case, [1967] 1 S.C.R.	362, Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 133, Kanan Devan Hills Produce v.	The State of Kerala and another, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 218, Gajapathi Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, [1954] S.C.R. 1, 10-11, and Wakf Estates v. State of Madras, [1971] 2	S.C.R.	790, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil	Appeal	No.
1938 of 1972.
Appeal	from the judgment and order dated the	21st June, 1972, ,,if the Kerala High Court at Emakulam in	O.P. No.
3771 of 1971.
Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1972.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 21st June, 1972 of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 3858 of 1971.
Civil Appeal	No. 1417 of 1972 Appeal	from the judgment and order dated the	21st June,, 1972 of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in O.P. No.	4036 of 1971 and Writ Petition Nos. 151, 152, 153, 176, 177, 178.
179, 180, 181, 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, & 198 of 1971.
Under Art. 32	of the constitution	of India for	the enforcement of fundamental rights.
674 M.M. Abdul Kader, V. A. Seyid Muhammad and P. C. Chandi, for the appellants, (in all appeals).
V.K. Krishnan	Menon,	B. Mohan and O.P. Khaitan for respondent (in C.A. No. 1398/72).
M.C. Chagla, (in C.A. 1417 only) T. K. M. Unnithan and A. S.
Nambiar, for respondents (in C.A. Nos. 1416-1417).
B.Dutta	and J. B. Dadachani, for petitioners	(in all W.Ps. except W.P. 186/71).
N. Sudhakaran	and P. K. Pillai, for petitioner (in	W.P.
186/71).
M. M.	Abdul	Kader,	Sukumaran and K. M. K. Nair,	for respondent No. 1 (in all the W.Ps).
R.N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2 (in all W.Ps except W.P. 186/71).
The Judgment of A. N. RAY C.J. D. G. PALEKAR	and Y. V.
CHANDRACHUD, JJ. was delivered by PALEKAR, J. KRISHNA IYER, J. gave a separate Opinion on behalf of himself and P. N.
PALEKAR,J All the above cases involve a challenged to	the Kerala	Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the Act as a whole was violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (f) (g)	and 31 of the Constitution.
The lands involved are private forest lands situated in	the former	Malabar District which, after the	States	Re- organization Act, 1956, stood transferred from the old State of Madras to the new State of Kerala.	As a result of	the Act referred to above, these forest lands vest in the State, allegedly, as a measure of agrarian reform.
The Writ Petitions are filed in this Court under Article 32 of the	Constitution by several Owners	and/or	lessees of large tracts of forest lands. The Civil, Appeals are filed by the	State, of Kerala from the judgment and order of a full bench of the Kerala High Court (Reported in A.I.R.
1973,	Kerala	36) in	petitions filed in	that court challenging the Act.	The High Court held that	the provisions of the Act are not protected by Article 31A of the Constitution and	accordingly declared the Act	as constitutional	and void. Thus in all the proceedings	now before us, which were argued together, the question involved is the validity of the Act. That will depend entirely	the' question whether the Act is protected by Article 31A(1) of the Constitution.
The conclusion	of the High Court was expressed in	the following words:
"Having regard to our conclusions that forest lands in the State of Kerala, cannot generally be regarded as	agricultural	lands	and, therefore, cannot be the subject of agrarian reform and that the scheme of agrarian reform 675 envisaged	by the impugned Act is not real or genuine but only illusory, we	are of	the opinion that the provisions of the Act are not protected by Article 31A of the Constitution.
We therefore declare the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting	and Assignment) Act 26 of 1971 unconstitutional and void." It is	contended on behalf of the State of Kerala that in order to get the protection of Article, 3 1A(1) (a) of	the Constitution that the law must fulfill	two conditions-(1) that it must	relate to an estate as	defined	in Article 31A(2)	(a) and (2) that the law-must be one	of agrarian reform.	What	is included in the expression	"estate" is specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause	(2) of Article 31A and, since the sub-clauses are	disjunctive, it will be enough for the State to show that the law relates to land covered by an "estate" falling in at least one of the sub-clauses. It was submitted that the private forests in Malabar are held in janman right and hence they are an ,estate within the meaning of sub-clause (i). If the State further	shows,	he contended, that the law	envisages a measure	of agrarian reform it was not	necessary for	the State to establish additionally, that forest lands	are similar	to lands described in sub-clause (iii), that is to say, lands held or let for purposes of agriculture or	for purposes ancillary thereto. In short, in the submission on behalf	of the State, the forest lands with which we	are concerned are an 'estate' within the meaning of Article 3 1 A (2) (a) (i) of the Constitution and since section 10 of the impugned Act, inter alia, embodies a scheme of agrarian reform, the Act is valid.
This will be the proper place to refer to the provisions of the Act. The Act is described as one to provide for	the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof to agriculturists	and agricultural laborers for cultivation.	The preamble is as follows:
"WHEREAS the private forests in the State of	Kerala	are agricultural lands;
AND WHEREAS Government consider that such agricultural lands should	be so	utilised as to	increase, the	agricultural production in the State and to promote the welfare of	the agricultural population in the State;
AND WHEREAS Government also consider that to give effect to the above objectives	it is necessary that	the private forests should vest in the Government;
BE it enacted etc.
By Section 1 the Act is made to extend to the whole of	the State of Kerala and is deemed to have come into force on the 10th day of May, 1971.	Section 2 gives some	definitions.
We are not concerned with all of them.	Clause (e) defines an owner as follows :
"(c) "owner", in relation to a private forest, includes	a mortgagee, lessee or other person having right to possession and enjoyment of the private forest." 676 Clause (f) defines "private forest". Private forest means,- (1)in relation to the Malabar district referred to in sub- section(2) of section 5 of the States Re-organisation	Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956),- (i) any land to which the Madras Preservation	of Private Forests	Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXVII	of 1949), applied immediately before the appointed day excluding- (A)lands which	are gardens or nilams as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964);
(B) lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee,cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon and lands used for any purposeancillary to the	cultivation of such crops or	for the preparation of	the same for	the market.
(C) lands which are principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit-bearing trees or are principally cultivated with any other agricultural crop; and (D)sites of buildings	and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for	the convenient enjoyment or use of,	such buildings;
(ii)any	forest not owned by the Government, to	which	the Madras	Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, did	not apply,,	including waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas;
(2)in relation	to the remaining areas in the	State	of Kerala,	any forest not owned by the Government, including waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas." Section	3 is	important. "Private forests	to vest in Government(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in	any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of	sub- sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall, by virtue of this	Act, stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any	other	person in any, private	forest	shall stand extinguished." The appointed day means the 10th day of	May, 1971. Sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 3 are not relevant for our present enquiry. Since some time	lag between vesting	and distribution under section 10 was	inevitable, section 4 provided as follows :
"4. Private forests to be deemed to be reserved forests- All private forests vested in the Government	under	sub- section	(1) of section 3 shall, so long as	they remain vested	in the Government, be deemed to be reserved forests constituted under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (4 of 1962) and the provisions of that Act shall, so far	as may	be, apply to such private forests." 677 Section	5 provides for eviction of persons in	unauthorised occupation and section 6 for the demarcation of boundaries of the private forests.
Section 7 provides for the constitution of Tribunals, their powers	and functions.	Sub-clause (2) of that section provides that "the Tribunal shall consist of a single person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be appointed as, a District Judge." Section	8 provides that "Where any, dispute arises as to whether-- (a)' any land is a private forest or not; or (b) any	private forest or portion thereof has been vested in the Government or not,	the person who claims that the land is not a private forest or that the private forest	has not vested in the Government, may apply to the Tribunal	for decision of the dispute.	Sub- section (3) provides that "if the Tribunal decides that any land is not a private forest or that a private forest or portion thereof has not	vested	in the Government, the custodian	shall, as soon as may	be, restore possession of such land or private forest or portion, as the case may be, to the person in possession thereof immediately	before	the appointed day." Section	9 provides that "No compensation shall	be payable for the vesting in the Government of any private forest or for the extinguishment of the right, tide and	interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest under sub-section(1) of section 3." Having thus provided for acquisition of private forest lands without	the necessity	to pay	compensation the Act	now proceeds to provide for a scheme of agrarian reform.
Section 10 Assignment of Private forests.-(1) The Government shall,	after reserving such extent of the private forests vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 or of the lands comprised in such private forests as may be necessary for	purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare 'of the agricultural population or for	purposes ancillary thereto, assign on	registry or lease to- (a) agriculturists;
(b) agricultural laborers;
(c) Members of Scheduled Castes	and Scheduled	Tribes who are willing to take up agriculture as means of their livelihood;
(d) unemployed	young persons belonging to families	of agriculturists and	agricultural laborers,	who have no sufficient means of livelihood and who are willing	to take up agriculture as means of their livelihood;
678 (e) laborers belonging to families	of agriculturists and agricultural laborers, whose principal means of livelihood before the appointed day was the income they obtained as wages for work in collection with or relate to private forests and who are willing to take up agriculture as means of their liveliho od.
the remaining private forests or the lands comprised in	the private	forests on such terms and	subject to	such conditions. and restrictions as may be prescribed." "(2) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate their power under sub-section (1) to any officer of the Government	or any class of officers of	Government, subject to such restrictions and control as may be specified in the notification." (3)The	extent	of private forests or lands comprised	in private	forests which	may be, assigned to each of	the categories of persons specified in sub-section(1) and	the order of preference in which assignment may, be made shall be such as may be prescribed." Section 11 is important. It reads : "Assignment to be	made within	two years.-Assignment of the private forests or	the lands comprised therein under section 10 shall, as far as may be, completed within two years from the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette." Section	12 deals with the powers of the Tribunals and	the custodian and	Section. 13 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Section	15 reads : "Constitution of Agriculturists Welfare Fund.(1) A fund called the Agriculturists Welfare Fund shall be constituted by the Government to be utilised for	the settlement and welfare of persons to whom private forests or lands comprised in private forests, have been assigned under section	10 and shall be administered in such manner as	way be prescribed." "(2) The Fund referred to in sub-section (1) shall consist of grants or loans by or from the Government	and monies received by the Government by the,sale of trees standing in such portion of the	private forests as are	or may be assigned under section 10".
Section	17 provides for the rules making power of	the Government.
By the repealing section 18 several Acts have been repealed including the	Kerala Private Forests (Vesting	and Assignment) Ordinance. 1971 which had been promulgated prior to this Act.
In short the Act purports to acquire forest lands without payment	of compensation for	implementing a	scheme	of agrarian reform by assigning lands on registry or by way of lease to the	poorer sections of the	rural	agricultural population. This is done after reserving portions of	the forests as may- be necessary for purposes "directed towards the promotion	of agriculture or the welfare of	the agricultural population or for purposes ancillary thereto." This scheme of agrarian reform is intended to be completed within two years.
679 Mr. Chagla, who addressed us the principal argument in	this case on behalf of the owners, contended that private forests could not be converted into agricultural lands by a	mere legislative flat contained in the Preamble of the	Act, because	forest lands	are lands in	which forests	grow spontaneously and naturally without human effort or skill and are quite	distinct from.	agricultural lands which, however	defined, must contain the element of	tilling	the soil for sowing and planting.	He pointed out that in	sub- clause	(iii) of Article 31A (2) (a) a forest land may be regarded as an agricultural land only when that land is held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto in which case a forest land may be included in the, definition of the word 'estate'. It was not shown that vast areas of private forests which are now in the possession of the owners and the lessees thereof were held	or let	for purposes of agriculture and hence they cannot be regarded:
as an 'estate' within the definition. That alone according to Mr.	Chagla	deprived the Act of the protection under Article 31A(1). Secondly, assuming that forest lands	are 'estate" within the definition, he further contended	that their acquisition was not for implementing any, scheme of agrarian reform but for a collateral purpose,	namely, to increase the revenues of the State by exploiting the forest wealth	of the lands by selling valuable timber naturally growing in them.
Since the Preamble to the impugned Act forests in the State of Kerala are 'agricultural	lands'	and there is	no definition of what is meant by 'agricultural lands' in	the Act itself, we shall have to consider in what sense	the expression 'agricultural lands' has been used in the	Act.
It is conceded by the learned Advocate General for the State of Kerala that a mere recital in the	Preamble, although admissible, will not be conclusive of the facts. But he submits	that courts should show decent respect to such an affirmation of fact because the legislature of a State is presumed to know the character of the lands situated in	the State,	the tenure under which they are' held, the use	and abuse to which they are put and the manner in	which	such natural	resources of the State are best .utilized for	the benefit of the community. He submits that this	affirmation in the	Preamble is not irresponsibly, made and that	the expression 'agricultural lands' has been used in a special sense having regard to the uses to which these forest lands have been put over generations. In his submission forest lands in Kerala are agricultural lands in, the	sense	that they are capable of being used for raising food crops.. cash crops, plants or trees and other purposes of husbandry.
The statement of objects and reasons in the Act contains the following :
"There	are vast extents of private forests in the State particularly in the Malabar area where such	forests	are owned by Janmies. These private forests are	agricultural lands.	In the Judgment reported in 1969 K.L.T. 320	(V.
Venugopala Varma Rajaa v. Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala) a division bench of the High Court has held that in	the absence of exceptional circumstances such as the land being.
680 entirely rocky	and barren for other reasons,	all forests lands- in the State are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be	prudently and	profitably exploited	for agriculturing purposes." Reference may also be made in this connection to some of the passages in the affidavit filed by Shri K. Viswanathan Nair, Joint Secretary to Government of Kerala, Law Department, in this connection. In	para 4 of his	affidavit he	says "Approximately	28 per cent of the total land area in	the Kerala	State constitutes forest lands. Generally forest lands comprised in the erstwhile native States of Travancore and Cochin area are owned by Government, whereas that of the erstwhile Malabar District of Madras	Presidency belonged partly	to private individuals and partly, to the State Government. It was estimated that the total extent of private	forests in Malabar area would come to	about 1,200 sq. miles, i.e. about 7.5 lakh acres...... As per the Survey conducted by the Madras Government in the year 1945, private forest lands in Malabar area, the extent of which was found to be	1,200 sq. miles then, belonged to	116 private individuals, the extent owned by them varying from 100 acres to 1,0,0,000 acres." Then he proceeds to say', "the forest lands in Kerala are agricultural lands and can be put to cultivation of various food and cash crops. Cultivation of forest	lands will increase the agricultural production in the State and	will also provide means of livelihood to landless agricultural laborers. The Government considered such lands should be distributed to	those	persons	for purposes of agriculture and that to ensure effective	and proper	distribution of such lands, the private forests should be vested in the Government." Then at para 19 he states as follows :
"It is also pertinent to, place before this Hon'ble Court the fact that	in large tracts of areas which had	been already clear-felled by the owners of the private forests or their contractors, food-crops like coffee, coconut. pepper, etc.. have been raised converting them into such food	crop plantations. Even planting teak and other plantation crops is agricultural operation and the lands on which these	are planted are agricultural lands.	After assignment of private forests	from the jenmies or after trespassing into	the private	forests, large numbers of settlers of the	poor classes have clear-felled the forests including dense forest areas and have cultivated food crops therein.	Plantations like tea, coffee, rubber, 'teak and	cardamom have	been raised	in the private forests by the	rich planters.	In other places after clear-felling the	forests, cocoanut, areca, tapioca and other cultivations have been raised,	the yield of which is found to	be considerably high	when compared to the other areas	of the	State.	Similarly, coffee,	pepper and rubber plantations have been successful in the forest lands in Wynad (Malabar District)".
A fact to which attention must be drawn is that whereas a large proportion of the forests in the former Travancore Cochin State belonged to the Government and only a small proportion to private owners or janmies, the position in the Malabar	District was just the ,opposite. Forest lands in that District belonged predominantly to 681 private owners or janmies Many of these private owners	were heads of Hindu Religious Endowments., A committee known as the Kutti Krishna Menon Committee had been appointed for recommending the unification	of laws	relating to Hindu Religious Endowments in the Madras State and that Committee, in one place of its report, suggested-and this is referred to in the affidavit-as follows :
"74. We would suggest that the large areas of virgin forest lands available within some of the Devaswoms may be utilized for plantation of cocoanut,. arecanut, pepper, cashew, rubber, etc." The Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 as ,mended in 1951, contained the following provision :
"52.(1)	The State Government or such officer as they	may authorise in this behalf may by order require the landlord of any waste or forest land to lease it for	agricultural purposes to such person for such term subject to	such conditions and within such times as may be specified in	the order." By reason of the increasing population of the area,	and consequent pressure on land, there was widespread squatting by agriculturists in forest areas where trees 'were cut	and large blocks , were brought under the plough.	The former State of Travancore and Cochin bowed to the inevitable by regularising the occupation by unauthorised settlers	and issued	orders	for settling agriculturists on land in	the forests	which	could be put to agricultural use. In	this connection the affidavit says:
"Forest	lands in the Travancore-Cochin area of	the State, which are Government Reserve Forests have been widely	used since long past for agriculture and	purposes ancillary thereto by persons to whom these lands were assigned by	the State and by large numbers of encroachers. Use of these lands for agricultural purposes on a large scale has	been adverted to, in the Report of the Sub-Committee on	the eviction of encroachers from the forest lands in the State of Kerala, to which also this respondent craves leave to refer in detail at the hearing.	The Government is currently distributing 3 lakh acres of forest lands for settlement of agriculturists." Reference was also made to the report of the Special Officer Shri K. Anantan Pillai who was asked to prepare a list of arable lands in the reserve forests-of the former Travancore and Cochin suitable for cultivation. That report was	made in 1969. The extracts from his report are given in	the affidavit and	they show to	what extent lands in	the Government reserve forests were made available to , hungry agriculturists	for food production. The officer says	"Now that the position of food supplies is far more serious	and the scope for finding employment for a very large number of people is getting more and more limited, one of the possible alternate solutions will be to take a fairly big slice of cultivable land from the Government forests for assignment to these people. With this object in view, I have inspected 682 these lands in all these divisions and I have prepared a list of areas considered suitable for cultivation, details of which are furnished." After furnishing the	details the Officer says : "The present attempt is to find out suitable cultivable lands in the reserve area and to give the land on a systematic basis. With this view in mind I have tried to find out suitable areas preferably in large blocks.	This will help the formation of fairly large sized	colonies or villages so that the allottees can have a social life and in course of time all the facilities for communal living can be provided to them. If a large block	is taken, normally because of the nature of land in our State a few steep hills cannot be excluded. The colony can be formed on the base of these hills in fairly elevated places and it can be-so arranged that	the individual	families will	have their residences at convenient places (within two or three miles) in relation to the area he is given for cultivation.	Some of the	blocks I have pointed out are	fairly	large areas where even small townships can be formed. This will aid the formation of cooperative societies to help the allottees in both their cultivation and in constructing suitable building for 'them." This shows how the Special Officer felt the need of settling chunks of the agricultural population in blocks of reserve forests and envisaged the	formation of large blocks in the forest area so that in the neighborhood and on the slopes of the hills villages and even small townships could be built.	The Officer was chiefly concerned with	the reserve	forests in the Kerala State. But in his report he also referred	to the	private forests in the Malabar District. In	that connection he says "Apart from this I understand that extensive areas of private	forests	are available in the Malabar Districts.	They can also be acquired and distributed." It must be remembered that what is stated generally about the nature of the reserve forest lands in the old State of Travancore Cochin applies equally to	the private forest lands of Malabar District because all	these	forests	are contiguous and form one long belt of a mountainous terrain- now forming part of the State of Kerala. It will be	thus seen that all forest lands, whether reserve or private, have been applied	for generations for the settlement	of agriculturists whether such settlements were authorised	for unauthorised. Vast areas-in the forests were clear-felled, as the expression goes, for bringing patches and blocks of lands under agriculture. Several types of produce were obtained by agriculture and a large population lives on	the same. Plantations of, coffee, tea, rubber, cardamom and the like were grown on an extensive scale in these forests.	In recent years Industrialists have taken leases of vast areas of these forests from their owners and a fraction of	the same has been brought under cultivation by planting eucalyptus and	other types of trees useful for paper	and other industries. Large areas in these forests seem to be even now in their pristine form but are capable of being utilized by absorbing a large proportion of the population by settling them on the land.	These	forests, therefore, have attained a peculiar character owing to their geography and climate and the evidence available to us shows that vast areas of these forests are still capable of	supporting a large agricultural population.	The several authoritative reports 683 to which reference was made in the, affidavit were	made available to us and the extracts therefrom were read out at the time of the. argument. They seem to support what a bench of the Kerala- High Court said in V. Venugopala Varma Rajaa v. Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala(1) in para 6 of the judgment. "It is well-known that the extensive areas of different varieties of plantations that we have got in	this State were once forest lands; and it is also equally well- known that year. after year large areas of, forest lands in this State are being cleared and converted into valuable plantations. In the absence of exceptional circumstances such as the land being entirely rocky , or barren for other reasons, all forest lands in this State are	agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes." This judicial opinion as we	have already seen has	been referred	to in	the Statement of Objects	and Reasons of	the Act. It	is, therefore, manifest that when the legislature stated in	the Preamble that	the private forests are	agricultural land, they merely wanted to convey that they are lands which by and large could be prudently and profitably exploited	for agricultural purposes.
Having	appreciated the true nature and character of these private forests we have to see whether they can be regarded as 'estate' within 'the contemplation of Article 31A (2) of the Constitution. That Article is as follows :
"31A. (a) the expression "estate" shall, in relation	to any local areas, have the	same meaning as that expression or	its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include- (i) any	jagir,	inam or maufi or other similar grant and in the States of Madras and Kerala, any jamman right;
(iii)any	land held or let for purposes	of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto.
including	waste	land,	forest	land,	for pasture or sites of buildings	and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural laborers and village artisans;
(b) The expression "rights?', in relation to an estate, shall include any rights vesting in a	proprietor, sub-proprietor, under- proprietor, tenure-holder, (raiyat, under- raiyat) or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue." The definition of 'estate' is an inclusive definition.	In subclauses (i), (ii) and (iii) certain categories of rights and lands are	included in the definition of the	word 'estate'. It	is the contention on behalf of	the Kerala State that these forest lands which are held in janmam right fall squarely under sub-clause (i). Since janmam tight to these lands is in an 'estate' it could be acquired by	the State (1) [1969] K. L. T. 230.
684 under	Article	31A(a)(1)(a).	There	is force in	this contention. Janman rights in the States of	Madras	and Kerala	are, as explained by Subba Rao, J. in	Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and others v. The State of Madras	and others(1) rights of hereditary proprietorship in land.
These rights, like the rights created by grant of jagir or inam relating to land, which included agricultural lands or waste lands or forests and hills (See: State of U.P. v. Raja Anand Brahma Shah) (2), are brought within the definition of the word 'estate', and are, therefore, liable to be acquired by the State under Article 31A(1)(a).
It is not disputed that all the private forests. with which we are	now concerned are held in Janmam right. Janmam rights being an ,estate' are liable to be acquired by	the State under Article 31A(1) (a) as a necessary step to	the implementation of agrarian reform.	Section	3 of	the impugned Act vests the ownership and	possession of	all private forests in the State. Therefore they would attract the protection of Article 31A(1). It would not be, in	such a case, necessary to further examine if the lands so vested in the Government are agricultural lands falling within sub- clause	(iii).	This is explained in some detail by	this Court in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil	Nadu (3) in para 15 at page 147.
Indeed	this does not mean that the State is absolved	from showing that the acquisition is for the purpose of agrarian reform.	In fact in Balmadies case, referred to above,	the acquisition of forests owned by janmies was set aside on the sole ground that the impugned law or the material on record did not indicate that the transfer of forests from	the janmies	to the Government was linked in any	way with a scheme of agrarian reform or betterment of village economy.
What then is the scheme of agrarian reform envisaged in	the impugned Act? The title of the Act shows that it is an	act to provide for the vesting in the Government	of private forests	for the assignment thereof to	agriculturists	and agricultural laborers for cultivation.	The Preamble shows that such private forests which the legislature thought to be agricultural lands	in the sense,	already explained, should	be so utilised as to increase	their	agricultural production in the State and to promote, the welfare of	the agricultural population in the State. It is further stated in the Preamble that in order to give effect to the above objects	it was necessary that the private forests should vest in the Government. The objectives of increasing	the agricultural production and the promotion of the welfare of the agricultural population are clearly a	predominant element in agrarian reform. How these objectives are to be implemented are generally stated in sections 10 and 11.	All the private forests, after certain reservations, are to be assigned to agriculturists or agricultural laborers and to the poorer classes of the rural population desiring	bona fide to take up agriculture as a means of their	livelihood.
The reservation in respect of certain portions of	the forests is also made (1)[1960] 3 S. C. R. 887. (2) [1967] 1 S. C. R. 362.
(3)[1972] 2 S.C. C. 133.
685 in the interest of the agricultural population because	the section	says that the reservations will be such-as may be necessary for	purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or welfare of the agricultural population or for purposes ancillary thereto. Section 11 further provides that after making the necessary' reservations the scheme for the assignment of the private forests to the various bene- ficiaries described in section 10 shall, as far as may be completed within two years from the date of the	publication of the Act. The conditions and restrictions under which the assignments are to take place have to be prescribed by rules.	We understand that in view of the stay	granted by the courts, the rules have not been framed. But it is clear that the rules will have to be framed forthwith because of the urgency of the matter as seen in section '11 and these rules will undoubtedly unfold the details of	the scheme generally envisaged in section 10.	It would not	be necessary to emphasize that the rules will	have to be consistent with the purposes of the Act. In	statutes of this nature, provision can only be	generally made to indicate the broad details of the scheme for agrarian reform and that is what is done in the Act.	In Balmadies	case referred to above no such scheme had been envisaged. But in another	case namely the Kannan Devan Hills Produce v.	The State of Kerala and another(1) the Statute viz.	The Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 5 of 1971 disclosed a scheme in section 9 which is very similar to our own section 10 of	the impugned Act. Section 9 of that	Act was as follows "9. Assignment of lands.-(1) The Government shall, after reserving such extent of	the lands, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-clause (1) of section 3	... ........... as may be necessary	for purposes	directed towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural population to be settled on.	such lands, assign on registry the	remaining lands to agriculturists and agricultural	laborers in such manner, on such terms and subject to such conditions and	restrictions, as may	be prescribed." That scheme as envisaged in this section was upheld by	this Court as a scheme for agrarian reform and we do not see	any good reason why we should take a different view with regard to the scheme envisaged in section 10 'of the impugned Act.
The High Court thought that the scheme was not real or genuine	but illusory and has given some reasons in para 12 of the judgment why it took that view.	The reasons given do not stand scrutiny. One reason was that whereas in	the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 Section 9 provided for' only assignment on registry of the lands, in section 10 of the impugned Act the forest lands are intended to be	assigned both	on registry and	by way of lease.
Exception is taken to assignments by way' of lease on	the ground	that the lessee does not get any fixing	of tenure.
Rules are to (1) [1972] 2 S. C. C. 218.
686 be still framed and it would be too early now to say	what conditions and restrictions will be imposed, in the leases.
Moreover, assuming that there is no fixity of tenure,	that would not mean that leases in favour of , agriculturists or agricultural laborers are not part of agrarian reform.	The point is that forest lands, overgrown by shrubs and jungle growth, will have to be cleared in the first instance before the land is made cultivable; and after the land is	made cultivable agricultural produce will be grown there by	some lessee	or the	other.	Assuming any	particular lessee's tenure is not fixed, that would not mean that the land	will remain	fallow.	Other agriculturists will step into	the shoes of the lessee and the process of growing	agricultural produce will continue in the interest of the grower and	the agricultural community as a whole. The other reason given is that there is no provision with regard to trees in	the forest reserve under section 10 and a suspicion is expressed that the Government may appropriate to itself the value of the trees. Mention is made that even a single log of	rose wood fetches a price of Rs. 40,000/-. It seems, however, to have escaped the notice of the High Court that the reserve portions of the forests under, section 10 are clearly earmarked in the section itself for purposes directed towards	the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural population or for purposes ancillary thereto.
There is, therefore, no foundation for the suspicion	that valuable trees	which	form part of the reserve private forests	are liable to be appropriated for purposes other than those specifically mentioned in that	section	15 provides for the constitution of the Agriculturists Welfare Fund and this relates to the price of trees standing in	the lands assigned on registry or given on lease.	That fund, according to sub-clause (2) shall consist of	grants	and loans by or from the Government and monies received by	the Government by the sale of trees standing in such portions of the private forests as are or may be assigned under section
10. No such fund is created for the purpose of the trees standing in the reserve area.	But that does not mean	that the value of the trees in the reserve area can be utilized for purposes other than those	specifically mentioned in section 10. That will be part of the scheme and Government will have to take adequate provision as to how the value of the trees can be utilized for purposes directed towards	the promotion of agriculture or welfare of the	agricultural population or for purposes ancillary thereto.
Another	objection was	that assignment of land without demarcation and survey was unpracticable and productive of strife. We do not	see why assignment of land	is impracticable in the absence of survey. Even	before	the introduction of the, survey, lands had been assigned and cultivated by	agriculturists.	The process of assignment must involve demarcation of the land assigned.	Sub-section (3) of section 10 says "the extent of private	forests	or lands comprised in private forests which may be assigned to each of the categories of persons specified in	sub-section (1) and the order of preference in which assignment may be made shall be such as may be prescribed." After	determining the extent of the land to be assigned, the land, 687 when assigned,, will have to be inevitably demarcated by the officers who	make the assignment.	That is not	an insuperable difficulty. As a matter of fact we know	from the affidavit on behalf of the Government that about 3	lakh acres of forests land have been already distributed. Indeed steps should be taken for an early survey in the interests of law and order. But survey is not the sine-qua-non of any genuine	scheme for distribution of land. We do not think that the High Court has given any substantial	reasons	for coming to the. conclusion that the scheme of agrarian reform is a"teasing illusion and a promise in unreality." in an attempt to show that the impugned Act was a piece of colorable legislation,	reference was made to	the Kerala Private	Forests Acquisition Bill, 1968 L.A. Bill No. 33 of 1968 which provided for the acquisition of private forests on payment of compensation for the acquisition. 'Nat Bill, it is contended, was allowed to lapse and the	present	Act was enacted with the obvious intention of expropriating vast forest	lands without paying compensation. We	can hardly countenance such an argument.	The question really is, in the first place, of the competence of the legislature to pass the impugned Act and, in the second, whether the Act is constitutional in the sense that it is protected by section 31A(1).	So far as the competence of	the legislature is concerned, no	objection is made before us.	As to	its constitutionality we have shown that the Act	purports to vest the janmam rights to the forests in the Government as a step in the implementation of agrarian reform. If	this could be constitutionally done by the legislature, the	fact that at an earlier stage the Government was toying with	the idea of paying compensation to owners of private forests is of little consequence.	The dominant purpose of the impugned Act, as already pointed out, is to distribute forest lands for agricultural purposes after making reservations	'of portions of the forests for the benefit of the	agricultural community. The fear is expressed that such a	course	if, genuinely implemented, may lead to deforestation on a large scale leading	to soil erosion and silting of	rivers	and streams and will actually turn out to be detrimental to	the interests of the agricultural community in the long run' it is undoubtedly true that rackless deforestation might	lead to very unhappy results. But we have no material before us for expressing	opinion on such a matter. It	is for	the legislature to	balance the comparative advantages of a scheme like the one	envisaged in the Act	against	the possible disadvantages of resulting deforestation. There are many imponderables to which we have no safe guides.	It is presumed that the legislature knows the needs of	its people	and will balance the present	advantages against possible future disadvantages.	If there is pressure on land and the legislature feels that forest lands in some, areas can be	conveniently and, without much damage to the	com- munity as a whole, utilized for settling a large proportion of the agricultural population, it is perfectly open, under the constitutional Powers vested in the legislature, to make a suitable law; and if the law is constitutionally Valid this Court can hardly strike it down on the ground that in the long run the legislation instead of turning out to be a boon will turn out to be a curse.
392SupCI/74 688 Mr. Menon who appeared for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1398/72 put forward a plea of	equitable estoppel peculiar to his client company.	It appears that the Company established itself in Kerala for the production of rayon cloth pulp on an understanding that the Government would bind itself to supply the raw-meterial. Later Government was unable to	supply the material and by an agreement undertook not to legislate for the acquisition	of private forests	for a period of 60 years if the Company purchased forest lands for the purpose of its supply of raw-materials.
Accordingly, the Company purchased 30,000 acres of private forests from the Nilabhuri KovilaKannan	estate. for Rs.
75/- lakhs and, therefore, it was argued that, so far as the company is concerned, the-agreement not to legislate should operate as equitable estoppel against the State. We do	not see how an agreement	of the Government can preclude legislation on the subject. The High	Court	has rightly pointed	out that the surrender by the, Government of	its legislative powers to be used for pubic good cannot avail the company or operate against the Government as equitable estoppel.
In the result the appeals are allowed and the Writ Petitions dismissed. It is declared that the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971	is constitutionally valid.	There shall be no order as to costs.
KRIsHNA	IYER, J. The holding and the reasons expressed in the leading	opinion	happily coincide with ours.
Nevertheless, the problems raised and the points debated bear upon such seminal Issues that	some supplementary observations from us may not be supererogatory.
Certain Owners of vast extents of private, forests aggrieved by the deprivation, without compensation, of their ownership under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) (hereinafter called, for	short,	the Forest	Act) challenged its vires under art.	226 of	the Constitution on the score that it violated their fundamental rights	under arts. 14, 19 and 31 and was not immunised by art. 31A from the lethal sting of art. 13. The High Court upheld	the attack and voided the statute. The defeated State has sought in appeal to sustain the constitutionality of the law while others who have suffered by the operation of the	statute have come up directly to this	Court under art. 32. The impugned Act vests in the State lands of these latifundists, flatly refusing any the littlest compensation, and the issue is whether the wings of art. 31A are	wide enough and the provisions of the Forest Act fair enough	for the Court to grant constitutional shelter.
The State wields the shield of art. 31A to ward off	the private owners' sword thrust of art. 13 read with arts.	14, 19 and 31 We must examine the application of art. 31A to the Forest Act.
689 Any law providing for the acquisition by the State of an 'estate' is saved by art. 31A subject to certain conditions, violation of arts. 14, 19 and	31 notwithstanding.-	Sub- article	(2) explains the concept of 'estate' and includes therein	janmam rights. Although art. 31A is worded widely enough	to rope in acquisition of any estate by the State regardless of	purpose, the Supreme Court has cut back on this amplitude	by limiting entitlement to constitutional protection to agrarian reform legislation only. Subba	Rao, J., in Kochuni's(1) case, speaking for the Court, reviewed the earlier decisions under art. 31A and interpreted the provision against the	back-drop of the objects of	the Constitution (Forth Amendment) Act, 1955 and	the earlier Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, to arrive at	the conclusion that art. 31A was meant "to facilitate agrarian reforms". This Court in the aforesaid decision struck	down the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts)	Act, 1955, because	"the impugned Act does not effectuate any agrarian reforms	and regulate the rights inter-se between landlords and tenants."	Art.	31A deprives citizens of their fundamental rights and such an article cannot be extended, by interpretation, to overreach the object implicit in the article, observed Subba Rao, J., and this judicial gloss has come to stay- Forensic debate has since centered round	what is agrarian reform, and counsel here have joined issue on the claim of the Forest Act to wear this protective mantle.
Article	31A having been read down to	relate	to agrarian reform,rightly,	if we may say so-in the feudal	context of the country and the founding faith in modernisation of agriculture informed	by distributive justice,	the controversy in	the present case demands a study of	the anatomy	and cardiology of the statute, not	its formal structure but it-, heart beats.
What do we mean by agrarian reform? The genesis of the con- cerned	constitutional amendments, and the current economic thinking must legitimately illumine the meaning, along	with lexicographic aids and judicial precedents. "We must never forget	it is	a Constitution	we are expounding."	The seventies of our century pour new life into old concepts and judges must have the feel of it. So viewed, the technology of agrarian	reform	for a	developing country which traditionally lives in its villages envisages the national programmes of transmuting rural life from feudal medievalism into equal, affluent modernism-a wide canvass	overflowing mere improvement of agriculture and reform of the	land system.
(1)[1960] 3 S. C.R. 887 690 The concept of agrarian reform is a complex and dynamic	one promoting wider interests than conventional reorganisation of the land system or distribution of land. It is intended to realise the social function of the land and includes we are merely giving, by way of illustration, a few familiar proposals of agrarian reform-creation of economic units of rural production, establishment of adequate credit system, implementation of modern production techniques, construction of irrigation systems and adequate	drainage, making available fertilizers,	fungicides and other	methods of intensifying and increasing agricultural	production, providing readily available means of communication	and transportation,	to facilitate	proper marketing of	the village produce, putting up of silos, ware- houses etc. to the extent necessary for preserving produce and handling it so as to bring it conveniently within the reach of	the consumers when they need it, training of village youth in modern	agricultural practices with a	view to maximising production and help solve social problems that are found in relation to the life of the agricultural community.The village man, his welfare, is the target.
Moving the first constitution Amendment Bill, the then Prime Minister, who	was in a large	sense	the protagonist of constitution framing for the country, observed :
"Now apart from our commitment, a survey of the world today, a survey of Asia today	will lead any intelligent person to see that	the basic and the primary problem is the	land problem today in Asia, as in India. And every day of delay adds to the. difficulties	and dangers,	apart from being an injustice in itself." "..... But inevitably, in big social changes some people have to suffer. We have too think in terms of large schemes	of social engineering, not	petty reforms	but of	big schemes like that." At the end of an extensive debate he again emphasized "May I remind the House that this question of land reform is most intimately connected	with food production. We	talk	about	food production and grow-more-food and if there is agrarian trouble and insecurity of land tenure nobody knows what is to happen.	Neither	the zamindar	nor the tenant can devote	his energies	to food production because there is instability." This reference to the apposite parliamentary debate reveals the special significance and	extensive connotation	of 'agrarian reform' in its application to Indian	conditions.
Indeed,	art. 31A(2)(iii) itself by referring to land	for pasture and sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators, agricultural laborers and village artisans gives clear hints of agrarian well-being being	pivotal to land reform	in its	larger legitimate	connotation.
Agricultural economists have focussed attention on the	need of under-developed countries to upgrade the	standard of living of village communities by resort 691 to schemes for increasing food production and	reorganising the land system. The main	features of the agrarian situation in India and in other like countries are the gross inequality in	land	ownership, the	disincentives to production and the desperate backwardness of rural life. As one Latin American has stated(1) :
"Agrarian	reform ought to be an	inseparable part of an agricultural policy which furthers the advance of	that aspect of economic activity	in harmony with overall economic development. Agrarian reform likewise pursues social and political ends congruent	with economic goals, such as the cultural elevation of the peasants, their	liberation from a vestiges of feudalism, their well-being, their group solidarity, and their participation in public life through	the mechanism	of democracy." It is	thus clear to those, who understand developmental dialectic and rural planning that agrarian reform is	more humanist than mere land reform and, scientifically viewed, covers	not merely abolition	of intermediary tenures, zamindaris and the like but restructuring of village	life itself	taking in its	broad	embrace	the socioeconomic regeneration of the	rural	population.	The Indian Constitution is a social instrument with an economic mission and the sense and sweep of its provisions must be gathered by judicial statesmen on that seminal footing.
Indeed,	the decisions of this Court cited at the bar adopt this meaningfully latitudinarian approach and we may briefly refer to them here.
In Ranjit Singh's(2) case, a semantic liberalism suggestive of a glimpse of the new horizons and a touch of the winds of change is read into the idea of	agrarian reform.
Hidayatullah, J., quoted a significant passage from	Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay,(3) which runs thus :
"With a	view to achieve the objective of establishing a socialistic pattern of society in the State within the meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, a further measure of agrarian reform was enacted by the State Legislature, being the impugned	Act, hereinafter referred to, which was designed to bring about such distribution of ownership and control of agricultural	lands	as best to subserve	the common good thus	eliminating concentration of wealth, and	means	of production to the common detriment." Indeed. the learned Judge struck the true national note, if we may say so, with great respect, when he observed(2) :
"The scheme of	rural	development today envisages	not only equitable distribution of land so that there is no undue imbalance in society resulting in a landless class on (1) 1964-65 (Vol. 50) IOWA Law Review, 529.
(2) [1965] 1 S. C. R. 82, 94.
(3) [1959] Supp. 1 S. C. R. 489.
692 the, one had and a concentration of land in the hands of a few on the other, but envisages also the	raising of economic standards	and bettering rural health and social	conditions.
Provisions for the assignment of lands to village punchayat for the use of the general community, or for hospitals schools, manure pits, tanning grounds etc. enure for	the benefit of rural population must be considered to be an essential part of the redistribution of holdings and	open lands to which	no objection is apparently taken.	If agrarian reforms are to succeed, mere distribution	of land to	the landless is not enough. There must be a proper planning of rural economy and conditions and	a body	like the village panchayat is best designed to promote. rural welfare.	than individual owners of small portions of lands." In Rajo Anand's(1) case, Sikri J., after holding the forests and waste lands in that case fell within the definition of 'estate' proceeded to take the view that acquiring the	many square miles of forests in that case being in the, nature of a necessary step in the implementation of agrarian reforms was impregnably insulated by	article 31A.	The sheer extinguishment	of certain types of	land	grants and hereditary holdings may, in given circumstances, without more, constitute steps in aid of agrarian reform. it is arguable that the elimination of ancient janmam may per se be regarded as possessing the attribute of agrarian reform because to wipe out feudal vestiges from our countryside and to streamline	land ownership	are preliminaries to	the projection of a socialistic order which part IV and art. 31A of the Constitution strive to create.	However, this Court has ruled in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu(2) and that decision binds us that a scheme of agrarian reform	is essential,	apart from taking over of jamman rights,	to make the law valid. In the present case a concrete agrarian project is presented by section 10 of the Forest Act- A substantially similar programme was considered by this Court in Kannan Devan's(3) case and	approved as sufficient to impart to the statute invulnerability under art. 31A. Notwithstanding the attempt of counsel for	the forest	owners,	to distinguish between the Kannan Devan provisions and	section 10 the distinction is without a difference. Once we accept the thesis	that developmental orientation and distributive justice are part of and inspire activist agrarian reform, its sweep and reach must extend to cover the needs of the village community as well. What pro- gramme of agrarian reform should be initiated to satisfy the requirement of rural uplift in a particular community under the prevailing	circumstances is a matter for	legislative judgment. Here, in this field the legislature is the policy maker and the court cannot assume the role of an. economic adviser or censor competent	to pronounce	whether a particular programme of agrarian reform is good or bad	from the point of view of the needs of the community. The sole (1) [1967] 1 S. C. R. 362. (2) [1972] 2 S. C. C. 133.
(3) [1972] 2 S. C. C. 218.
693 issue for the Court is whether it is in fact a scheme of agrarian reform, and if it is, the prudence or folly thereof falls outside the orbit of judicial review being a blend of policy,	politics and	, economics ordinarily	beyond	the expertise and proper function of the court.
I We may, however, point out here that in	ascertaining whether	the, impugned enactment outlines a blueprint	for agrarian reform the Court will look to the substance of	the statutory proposal and .not its mere	outward	form.	The Court will closely study to see if the	legislation merely wears the mask of agrarian reform or it	in reality such. A label cannot salvage	a statute from the clutches	of constitutional limitations if the agrarian reform envisaged by it is "a teasing illusion or promise of unreality."	The Court should .not be too gullible to accept a scheme of agrarian reform when it is nothing but a verbal	subterfuge, but at the same time the Court should not be too astute to reject	such a scheme because it is not satisfied with	the wisdom	of the scheme or its technical soundness. Can	the State take over an industrial unit or a business undertaking without payment of compensation and claim the protection of art. 31A by stating that the	profit	arising from	such industrial unit or business undertaking would	be utilised for purposes directed to agriculture or welfare of the rural population? Such an acquisition would obviously not be an acquisition for carrying out a scheme of agrarian reform because there will be no direct 'nexus between the, subject- matter acquired and its utilisation for agrarian reform. It would not be enough merely to say that the income of the property acquired is to be utilised for purposes of agrarian reform.	The property itself must be acquired for carrying out such a reform. This requirement is satisfied in	the, present	case because forest lands reserved under s. 10	are to be utilised "for purposes directed to the, promotion of agriculture or for the welfare of	the	agricultural population or	for purposes ancillary thereto." We do	not think it would have been sufficient merely to provide	that the income from the produce of the forests shall be utilised for promotion	of agriculture or the welfare of	the agricultural population, but the forest lands need not be so utilised. That would	have been merely a	devise	for augmenting the revenues of the State though with a direction that such addition to the revenue shall be expended only on' purposes of promotion of agriculture or the welfare of	the agricultural population. But here it is clear on a reading of s. 10 that the forestsand not merely the income are to be devoted to or directed toward-, the promotion of agriculture or the	welfare of the agricultural	population or	for ancillary uses	closely related to agrarian reform.	The details	of the scheme of agrarian reform to which	the acquired forests would be subjected cannot obviously be embodied in the statue and they are left to be provided by rules which are to be made under s. 17 for the	purpose of carrying out the Provisions of the statute. No rules could so far be made by the State Government. it is said, because there was a stay against the implementation of the Act	when the petition was pending in the Kerala High Court	and thereafter the Act was declared to be ultra vires and	void by the	judgment of the Kerala High Court which is under appeal before 694 ,us. Now that the Act is	being declared	by us	as constitutionally valid, the State Government will have to make rules setting out the precise programme	of agraian reform	which is intended to be carried ,out.	Counsel	for the forest owners has expressed an apprehension before us that the State Government may keep the forests as they	are for a long number of years and namely go on augmenting	the revenues of the state by cutting and selling timber growing on them and thereby defeat the rationale of art. 31A itself.
But there is no basis or justification for this apprehension because	we are of the view that the agrarian project would have to be spelt out concretely by the, State Government within	the prescribed period of two years or at any	rate within	a reasonable time thereafter. If the State Govern- ment merely goes on making money by cutting and selling	the timber	grown on the	forests without implementing	the definite proposals of agrarian reform contemplated in s. 10 within a reasonable period of time, it would be a subversion of the statute and in such a case it would be competent to the aggrieved parties to take legal action compelling the State to make good the statutory promise and to act In terms of s. 10, and if the forests are diverted for uses outside the scope of s.10 the court could restrain the	State	from such illegitimate adventures.
While	a straight case of mala fides vitiating	the legislation has not been set up, an article in the Malayam Dress by the Chief Minister has been relied on to make	out that agrarian reform was more a cloak than the real intent The Chief Ministff's literary contribution cannot necessarily bind the State, although his statement may	help build a case of colorable legislation. which has not	been urged here. Moreover, the article doe-, not	advance	the case of the petitioners for it envisages a real project for rural regeneration and better production. It is good to remind	ourselves what colorable legislation means	in constitutional law. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court	in Gajapathi	Narayan	De,) v. State of Orissa(1) where this doctrine was discussed. Mukherjee, J., clarified the law thus :
"It may be made clear at the outset that	the dectrine	of courable legislation does	not involve any question of bona fides or	mala fides on	the part of the legislature.	The whole doctrine	resolves itself into	the question	of competency	of a	particular legislature to enact a particular law. If the legislature is competent to pass a particular law, the motives which impelled it to act	are really irrelevant. On the other hand if	the legislature lacks competency. the question of motives does not arise at all.	Whether" a statute is constitutional or not is	thus always a question of	power... The	idea conveyed	by the expression is that although apparently a legislature in passing a statute purported to act within the (1) [1954] S. C. R. 1, 10-11, 695 limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality it transgressed those powers,-	the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be a mere pretence or disguise." The Forest Act survives the	attack	on the score	of colorable legislation.
Considered in this light it is not possible to hold that S.
10 has no nexus with agrarian settlement. Of	course,	the programme held	out in the provision,	if not	implemented within	a reasonable time or otherwise peverted to	non- agrarian purposes, may give rise to	judicial scepticism about the Government's bona fides and induce consequent remedial action. As we see it, the Forest Act is calculated to bring benefit to landless laborers, tribals and other proletarian groups in the over-populated state	of Kerala.
The fear that the	executive win	dawdle and delay unreasonably or act obliquely to defeat the agrarian welfare content of the measure may gain credibility when the scheme is not legislatively time-bound. In the present case a two- year period for reserving foresters and distributing	the rest is written into the statute itself. If the State,	for ulterior ends, prevaricates or betrays the scheme by	non- implementation or mis-implementation an aggrieved party	may seek relief through a judicial post-audit. The Court is not altogether powerless in such a case, in the light of	the observations made by Sikri, C.J, in Kannan Devan's(1) case that:
"If the State were to use lands for purposes which have no direct connection with	the promotion	of agriculture or	welfare	of agricultural population	the State could be restrained from	using the lands for those purposes.	Any fanciful connection with these purposes would not be enough." Moreover, the executive is not wholly unaccountable to	the nation	merely because the law has been	judicially cleared once.
A grievance has been made by the writ petitioners	that their extensive forest lands are being confiscated without a paisa of compensation while the timber itself will be worth crores.	In Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of	Madras,(2), Hegde,	J., was pressed with the contention that art.	31A does not protect a legislation where no	compensation whatsoever has been provided when taking the estate.	The Court,	however, did not decide the question.	We, on	our part, do not think there is any merit in it. Once we	find the legislative area is barricaded by art. 31A, it cannot be breached by arts. 14, 19 and 31 and judicial	break-in is constitutionally interdicted.	But, at the same time, we must hasten to point out that art. 31A is no	charter of legislative freedom to refuse compensation altogether in every case. The Court may not strike down a	statute	for non-payment of compensation but the legislature is expected, except in exceptional socio-historical setting, to provide just payment for the deprived persons. To exclude judicial review is not to black out the beneficent provisions of (1) [1972] 2 S.C. C. 218.
(2) [1971] 2 S. C. R. 890.
696 arts. 14, 19 and 31. May be the present legislation dealing with extensive	antiquated janmam rights relates to	the exceptional category.	All that we can say is that this is an area where not the court but the elector is	the proper corrective instrument.
For these and other reasons already mentioned in the leading judgment of our learned brother, Mr. Justice	Palekar, we agree that the appeals be allowed and the writ petitions be dismissed with no order as to costs.
K.B.N.	Appeals allowed. writ petitions dismissed.