- ; ~ .. MADHUSDAN SINGH & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. a
: a "November 22, 1983 {S. Mortaza Fazat AI AND M.P. THakkar, JJ}
, . West Bengal Land ‘Reforms Act, 1955 as amended by Amendment Acts of B ; , 1972 and 1977—-Sections 14M, T7(e) 1 17(6) and 21B 3 of constitutional validity of. . - 4 < i
The petitioners, in this round of challenge assailed the validity of Section . 14M, 17(c), 17(6) and 21'B of the West Bengal Land! Reforms Act, calling"to ~ oy , ; ‘their aid certain observations made by this Court in Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani .
; ; and Sri Sri Raghunath Jain & Ors ete v. Union of India’ & Ors. (1981) 2 S.C.R. . 950 and the decisions in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union-of india & Ors. (1981) be, 1 S. C.R. 206 and. 14% anan Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 25S.C.R. 1.
17 Lo . ‘ The pelitioners raised the following points 2
; «a that the total ceiling area allowed to be retained by the 1953 Act in YY respect of agricultural land in khas posséssion_ of the “Raiyats was drastically ' , . reduced; . ne - . a a fo 4 pF : " ii) that althongh the status of raiyats. was cofiferred on the erstwhile . 7. -* landlords which was heritable and transferable, the institution of bargards was | introduced } in order to enable the > Faiyats to cultivate their lands on a 50:50 basis ~ and, . eos . . - ae ‘ us ‘ ; (iii) that while the Amendment Act of 1972 had given a right to the I 7 - gaiyats to resume the lands given to the .bargardars for their personal ; ae - ‘cultivation; the subsequent amendments.took away this right and made the . ; dL , right of the bargardar both’ heritable and transterable causing serious detriment 4 / and prejudice to the: ralyats., :
Dismissing the petitions, the Court.
-
HELD: J 1 The impugned amendments were manifestiy and pointedly made for the purpose of. giving effect to and securing the objects of Article 39(b) because: these Acts clearly intended to distribute the material resources of the ; ; - community viz, the agricultural iands toa large number of tillers of the soil .in . . order to serve the common good of the aforesaid people.. The Amendments . ,,y ‘ + > fall ‘within the letter and spirit of Article 39(b) of the -Constitution.. The ‘Acts | H a an . have not touched the non-agricultural liome stead lands, or ‘buildings of -the ‘ Land owners standing thereon but has taken over auly a rhajor portion of the agricultural | lands, Teaving with the landlords a portion prescribed within the. -
& people of India, the Government’ sought to introdu€e agrarian
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS | {1984} lsc.
ceiling.limit and distributed the excess to the tillers of the soil which alone constitute their main ‘source of sustenance and livelihood. The claim of the —
‘raiyats (erstwhile landlords) that the Acts amount to confiscation i is absolutely untenable and amounts only to shedding crocodile tears and an anathema or taboo, (860 H, 861 A-B; 860 G} ‘ .
1.2 The error regarding the addition of Amending Acts as items of ‘Entry in the Ninth Schedule was inadvertantly crept in the decision of Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani’s case. Fiven if the Acts were not inclyded in the Ninth Schedule, their constitutional validity could not be questioned because the provisions are otherwise reasonable and give full effect to. the progmatic and socialistic approach as contained in Article 39(b) of the Constitution,
Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani and Sri Sri Raghunath Jew and Ors v, Union of
India & Ors. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 950; Minerva Mills Lidv. Union of India and Ors
[t981] 1 S.C.R. 206; Warman Rao & Ors y. Union of India & Ors, {1981} 2 S.CLR:> 1: Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Lid. and Anr., [1983] 1S.C.R. 147; Sasanka-Sekhar Maity & Ors. Union of india & Ors, (1980) 45S.C.C. 716, State of Tamil Nadu ete v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and ‘Ors. CA. Nos
. 957-966 (N) of 1973 decided on 31- 10- 83 followed.
* 13 The Amendment Acts cannot be challenged as violative of the .
doctrine of nexus or involving no process of distributions. . oy State of Karnataka v. Rangnatha Reddy & Anr. (1978j 1S.C.R. 641, Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 2S.C.R. 950, Sanjeeva Coke
. Manufacturing Co. v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Anr. [1983] 1 S.C.R- 147, and State of Tamilnadu ete, v. EL. Abukavur Bai 8&-Ors. C. A. No. 957-966 (N)’ ‘of 4973 decided on 31-10- 1983 followed, 1.4 The provisions of the Amendment*by which the raiyat is enjoined to reside.in the village itself for a large part of the year cannot Ue said to be either harsh or arbitrary. . .
. Sri Sri Kalimata Thaleurant ete Vv. “Union of India & Ors, {1981] 258.C. Re 950, applied.
OtoiaL JORISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 5545 of 1980. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Pankaj Malik and Mr. R. P. Singh for the Fetitioners.
S. N. Kacker and Rathin Das for the Respondent.
%
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by |
: Fazat Aur, J. True to the spirit and lettér of our Constitution and i in fulfilment of the promises made by our national leaders to the -
«!
®.
Fv ote fee el wee 8,”
Fd
MADHUSUDAN ¥. UNION (Fazal Ali J) 851 reforms so as to reserve the lands to the. tillers of the soil giving marginal relief or compensation to the erstwhile landlords or tenantsin-chief, through various statutes passed by almost all the States in the country, In order to hasten and safeguard the agrarian reforms
_ the Constitution takes full care by virtue of the insertion of the directive principles of State policy contained in part IV, which are
. undoubtddly. the heart and soul of our Constitution and have in fact been complied with in a variety of spheres. Ceaseless attempts made
. by the landlords to challenge the constitutional validity of the aforesaid reforms met with little success. Having failed in their attempts © to undo the socialist reforms passed for the purpose of building an egalitarian society and bringing about marked improvement in the condition of the poor suffering tillers by the various Acts passed by the States, the landlords left no stone unturned and were always on | > the look out for an opportunity to seize ‘the lands from the tenants - _ On one pretext or the other through manpower, muscle-power or money-power. Nevertheless, the constitutional validity of most of the Acts came up for decision in the High Courts and in this Court and by and large each one of them was held to be constitutionally
"valid, thus setting at naught the: attempts of the landlords to take back possession of the lands which should have been given to the tillers of the soil long before. The landlords were thus unable to get
_hold of any opportunity to pounce upon the land which went and should have gone to. the actual tillers of the soil.
“+
_ Thereafter, some of the bigger landlords’ tried through’ their. dextrous methods aud legal ingenuity to defeat the laudable social endeavour of the Government by making.a show of the: so-called complete destruction of their assess and properties reducing them to starvation, -This case is yet another glaring illustration of such an_ adroit attempt made by the tenants-in- -chief to deprive the actual
‘tillers of the rights conferred on them by the Land Reforms Acts of West Bengal passed from 1953 to 1977. In view, however, of the | . Modern trends of the decisions of this Court, which always ‘made a practical and pragmatic approach to any progressive step taken. by the Parliament, the attempts of the landlords ultimately proved to be - a grotesque failure.
-Comming now to the ‘facts of the.cyse, a 1 brief history of, the admirable object of the agrarian reforms introduced by the Govern-— ment of West Bengal may be necessary as a prelude to our discussion on the subject. In fact, all the cuatentions raised before us stand
=
| 852 mo : — SUPREME. ‘Court REPORTS os [ised] i S.GR.
concluded by a ‘recent decision of this Court as‘we 2 shall show here: . after, Not content with the addjtion of Art.31C of the Constitution ° which was introduced by the Constitution’ (25th Amendment) Act, _ .1971, the petitioners chose to call into aid the decisions of this Court ian Minerva Mills Ltd. v. ‘Union of India & Ors(2) and Waman Rao &.
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors(5.,. which also proved to be an exercise futility because the ratio of these cdses is in no way of any ‘assistance to the petitioners. .
In the instant case, we are concerned: with agrarian reforms’
achieved from time to. time by the Govertiment of West Bengal in
' order to’ improve the lot of the tillers of the land by giving-them as many facilities as could be-possible within the framework of the law. and the Constitution. Having realised thatthe West Bengal Estates - Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the’ ‘1953 Act’) - | could not be challenged-the landlords waited for ‘future ‘litigations’
swoop down on the validity of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,
1955 (hereinafter. referred to as the: ‘1955 Act’) as amended by: the _
West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 and the West
Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1977 (for facility, to be: . geferred to as the ‘Amendment Act of 1972 -and ‘Amendment Act .
of 197? respectively).
“In the ficst ‘round which was the subject matter, of a decision of ” this Court ‘Sri Sri. Kalimata Thakurani and Sri Sri Raghunath “Jew &-
Ors. etc. v. Union of India &. Ors. (°) to which one of us (Fazal Ali J)
was a party, this Court negatived the constitutional objections and | contentions raised by -the landlords against the reforms introdiced by
.. the 1955 Act and the 1972 and.1977 Amendment, Acts. . Unfortunately, however, there appears to be some ‘small Jacuna in the above judgment which was unhesitatingly exploited by ‘the petitioners sO as ~ to attempt to destroy the progressive amendments of 1972 and 1977- ' pacticularly taking advantage of certain observations - made . in that . . case to, which we shall come later.
f
‘To. begin with,.in the 1953 Act which was ‘enforced with effect from 12th February, 1954, Section 4 introduced a more or Jess redical reform for the benifit. of the. actual tillers by: abolishing the rights of”
(1) (1981) 1'S.C.R. 206, (2) [1981}2 S.C.R. 1. (3) [1981] 2S.C.R. 950.
vy.
» vaDHUSUDAN y. UNION (Fazal Ali,J.) 853
‘ the intermediary (ex-landlords).. By virtue of this section all estates - and the rights of every intermediary was to vest in the State free * from all encumbrances from a date mentioned i in a notification issued by the Government. In order, however, to be just and: fair to the erstwhile landlords they were conferred the status of raiyats. or _ tenants. By virtue of s. 6 they were entitled to retain certain catego- ries of lands like lands comprised. in ‘home-steads or appertaining to buildings and: structures, etc., or non-agricultural. land in khas possession. Section 6(d) expressly provided that so far as-agricultural
"land in khas possession was . concerned it would not exceed twenty.
five acres in area to be chosen by the landlord. ; _ No serious grievance was made before us regarding the provisions of sections 4 to. 6 excep- - ting that the ceiling of twenty five.acres was not sufficient for the landlords to make both their ends meet and enable ‘them to earn
* their’ livelihood. ‘Such'a plea: has to be stated only to be ‘rejected because the landlords who had huge lands. comprising home-stead - ' lands or those appertaining to buildings or structures and non-agri-
‘cultural lands in khas possession were not at-all touched by the 1953
Act. In these:circumstances, therefore, we do not take! any’ serious notice of this grievance which in fact was not pressed before us, °
Realising the current trends in the ‘social approach of the
: "agrarian reforms . made by-.the courts, the counsel for the petitioners ©
- confined his arguments to three infirmities from which the 1953 Act and the 1972 and 1977 Amendment ‘Acts suffered: However, during
- the’ course sof: arguments the challenge remained confined only to certain specific amendments made by the 1972 and 1977 Amendment Acts and the points raised before us may be summarised thus ; i
-@: that the total eciling 2 area ‘allowed to -be retained by. .., the 1953 Act in respect of agricultural land in khas ~ ~ possession of the raiyats was drastically reduced, -
. (2) ‘that although the ‘status of raiyats was conferred on ' the erstwhile landlords -whlch was heritable and transferable, the’ institution of bargardar's was introduced in order to enable the raiyats to cultivate their lands on a ‘50: 50 basis, and
(3) that while the Amendment Act of 1972 had given a ' right to the raiyats to resume .the lands given to the
+
-bargardars for their personal cultivation,.the subse-
, quent amendments took away this right and made
‘the right of the bargardar both heritable and trans-
'. ferable causing serious detriment and prejudice to. . the raiyats.
_ We now proceed to refer only to those provisions whose constitutional validity has been seriously challenged by the petitioners. It appears that by the 1972 Amendment ‘Act certain changes were made and a reference was made particularly to s, 14M which may be extracted thus :
(2)
+
“14M, ceting area—(1) The ceiling,area shall be,— r’
(a). in the case of a raiyat, who is an adult unmarried . person, 2.50 standard hectares;
(b) in the case of a raiyat, who is the sole’surviving “member of a family, 2.50. standard hectares; .
(c) in the case of a raiyat having a family consisting of two-or more but not more than five members, . ' §,00 standard hectares;
(a) in the care of a raiyat having a family consisting of more than five’ members, 5.00 standard: hect-_ ares; plus 0.50 standard hectate for each member " in excess of five, so, however, that the, aggregate of the ceiling area for such raiyat shall not, in . any case, exceed 7.00 standard hectares;
(e) ‘in the case of 2 any other raiyat, 7.00 standard hectares; . °
Notwithstanding anything’ contained in sub-section (1), where, in the family of a raiyat, there are miore raiyats than ope, the ceiling area for the raiyat, together with the ceiling area of ali the other. raiyats in the family shal} not, in. ‘any case, exceed,—
(a) where the number of’ members of such family does not exceed five, 5.00 standard hectares;
MADHUSUDAN p. UNION (Fazal Ali, J.) . 855
(b). where such number exceeds five, 5.00 standard hectares, plus 0.50 standard hectare for each ‘member in excess of five, so, however, that the. aggregate of the ceiling area shall not, in any case, exceed 7.00 standard hectares.
(3) For thé purpose: of sub-section (2), all the lands owned individually by the members of.a family or jointly by some or all the members of such family . shall be deemed to be owned by the raiyats in the family. id
_ It was submitted that the drastic reduction of the area of the ~ ’ raiyat has been reduced to 2.50 standard hectares being the minimum’ and 7,00: standard hectares being the maximum according to the - nature of cases mentioned in cls.(a)_ to (e) of s. 14M(J) and cls.(a) | _ and (b) of s, 14M(2), as extracted above, which worked serious injustice to the tenants. a
OA strong exception was taken to the amendment of s.17 of the 1955 Act particularly the substitution of s.17(c) and the. various ‘provisos to that section. The validity of s.17(6)-was also challenged on the ground that the legislation was confiscatory. ,
The provisions of the proviso to cl. (8) of s.2 added by the 1977: Amendment Act to the 1955 Act was seriously assailed. The: said proviso runs thus : .
“Provided that such person or member of his family resides for the greater part of the year in the locality
. where the land is situated ‘and the principal source of his income is produced from such land.” ”
_ Asimilar challenge was made to the addition of-s.21B in the ‘ 1955 Act by the 1977 Amendiment Act. On similar grounds the - aforesaid provisions were also challenged. in the decision of this Court in Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani’s case (supra) which did not meet with any .success. . It was, however, pointed out by the counsel for the _ petitioners that this Court did not accept the arguments of the petitioners in that case because it was under an erroneous impression * that the 1955 Act and the Amendment: Acts of 1972 and 1977 were added to the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution of India and were wd
856 a _ SUPREME couRT reports (1984) i s.cr.
therefore, i immune frat challenge. To some extent the counsel is
‘right in ‘his statement that such an inadvertent mistake has crept in due to oversight because the 1955 Act and the Amendment Acts of -1972 and 1977 were added to the Ninth Schedule by: the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of 1976 being entry - numbers 181 to 185,
‘Hence, it could be reasonably argued. that the, constitutional validity of the provisions, mentioned .above, was justiciable’ and could be © gone into. - Before dealing with these arguments it may be necessary to. extract certain’ portions of the decision of this Court -in Sri Sri - Kalimata Thakurani’ "gs case (supra) where this Court after dealing with ‘the various provisions observed thus :
“In the instant case, it is clear that the 1955 Act as also the Amendment Act of 1972 were added: to the Ninth — Schedule, being’ entry Nos. 60 ‘and 81, prior to April 24,
-* 1973. .In these circumistances, it is manifest that the” aforesaid Acts are completely immune from challenge on the ground that they are violative of any of the rights 7
- + . enshrined in. -Part: [If of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was fully justified | in making | the concession before us.’
The error is 's undoubtedly - there. but’ neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the counsel for the respondent drew our attention to this Omission. Even ifthe. Acts were not included in the Ninth
Schedule. their constitutional: validity could not be: questioned because . this Court has clearly held in Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani’s case that the provisions .are otherwise reasonable and. give full effect to the
_ pragmatic and socialistic approach, \ where the following observations - were made : ,
4?
“It would be seen that s. 7 perinits. the cultivator to terminate the cultivation of the land by a bargardar and_ resume possession under his own cultivation if the con- .
os ditions mentioned in clauses. (a), ‘(b) and (d) of sub-
‘section (1) of s. 17° are. satisfied. Clause (d) may be extracted thus :—
“That the person 1 owning thesland requires it bona fide for, bringing it under personal cultivation.”
Thus, ‘the culivator has a ‘right. to eet back the land * for‘ personal cultivation if he requires it for-his bona fied
—
) MADHUSUDAN y. UNION (Fazal Ali, J.) oe 857
» use and proves the’ same to the satisfaction of the autho- , a rity appointed under s. 17().” : : .*
' dar was protected and made heritablé could not be challenged as
_ being: either unconstitutional, unreasonable or. arbitrary. But this ° ». Court made some observations which were in favour of the ‘petitioner .
and- which may be extracted as follows : / “But when the Bargatdor on his own volition surreneof ders or abandons the land, there i is.no reason why the tenant should not be allowed to resume - cultivation and instead be compelled to get the land cultivated by some other person nominated by the authority concerned: under 3.49 of the 1955 “Act. This provision therefore appears: - . to us to be extremely harsh and works serious injustice to the rights of the tenants particularly after the ceiling are _of the tenant has been considerably reduced by the Amen- _ dment Act of 1972. . ‘Thus, the tenant having a small / area- guaranteed ‘to him for his unit, he should ‘heve at : “least fuller and more effective rights to get, that area cultivated by him or even by .a bargardar of his choice. A. "subject to resuming the same, if the bargardar surrenders. ~ or abandons the Jand......... - Unfortunately, however, ~ .though the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of - ~ §.20B, which is only a penal section) ‘perilously border on _arbitrarinsss and amounts to serious curbs on the fundamental right of thé cultivator to pursue his occupation, ‘We cannot however strike down these - provisions because \, . - they are contained in the Amendment’ Act of 1972, which has beén placed in the Ninth ‘Schedule prior to. April 54, 1973, and therefore fall within the protective umbrella and are immune from challenge.”
us A capital was therefore made out of the above observations i in Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani’s case. Reliance was also plaeed on a decision of. this. Court in Sasanka Sekhar Maity & Ors. v Union of
- India &&Ors() where A. P.Sen,J. ” _ Speaking for the Court, made the
+: following ¢ observations :,
) cat “4
(1) (ioe 4SCG. 116, So es,
Referting to some of the provisions of the 1972 Amendment : . Act this Court held that the provision by which the right of-bargar-.
858 _° SUPREME COURT REPORTS. {1984 18.c,R.
; In order, therefore, to reconcile the fundamental .’, tights of the community as a whole with the individual: rights ofthe more fortunate section of the community, it was fundamentally necessary to make the impugned legis- ‘lation to serure to a certain extent the rights of that part _ ofthe community which is denied its legitimate share in ‘the means of livelihood, “The broad objectives os any legislation relating to ’ agrarian reforms are materially four, viz., (1) to maximise the agricultural output and’ productivity, (2) a fair-and equitable distribution of agricultural income, (3(i increase . inemployment opportunitiés, and (4) a sosial or ethical . order. Though the abolition of the zamidari system in "the State-of West Bengal was'an important step‘ forward, ' the feudal structure remained so far as the peasants were’ concerned, These objectives have been achieved through _ progressive legislation.”
These observations put the petitioners ‘completely out of court demolish the coftentions advanced before us. The four objectives mentioned by Sen,J..in the passage extracted above-are clharly brought out and implemented by virtue of the impugned amendments in the 1955 Act,
So far as the decision in the case of Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani
(supra) is concerned, in view of the crystallisation of the law in
Minerva Mills, Waman Rao (supra) and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr.*) cases ‘which have been
- followed and amplified in the recent decision of this Court in State ‘of Tamil Nadu, ete v. L Abu Kavir ‘Bai & Ors.,2) the matter is no-
" longer res integra and even if there was‘an inadvertent ‘error in the
’ observations of this Court in Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani’s case, the same has become redundant as the impugned provisions can be supported as squarely, falling within the four corners of Art.39{b) of the
Constitution as the intention of the Acts is to secure and promote the ©
Objectives contained in Art.39(b). In this connection, we -might vextract a few observations from L. Abu Kavur Bai & Ors. (supra) :
ENT eTTERaT ey “
(2) c. A. Nos. 957-966 (N) of 1973. etc. decided on 31. 1.10. 83.
MADHUSUDAN ¥. UNION (Fazal Ali, J,). 859.
“In view of Art.31C, which gives protective umbrella against Art.31(2) also, the Court cannot strike down the Act merely because the compensation for taking over the transport services or its units is not provided for. The reason for this is that Art.31C was not merely a pragmatic approach to socialism but imbibed a theoretical aspect by which all mearis of production, key industries, -
_ mines, minerals, public supplies, utilities and services may be taken ‘gradually under public ownership. management and control. ”
It-was further argued by the petitioners that there ¥ was no clear nexus between the Act and the. objectives contained in Art.39(b).
‘ We are, however, unable to agree with this argumeot because the question. of nexus has been clearly expounded by this.Court both in the Minerva Mills. and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co.’s cases as
‘also in the case of L. Abu Kavaur Bai & Ors. (supra) where a Cons- titution Bench of this Court, speaking through one of us (Fazal Ali,J.), made the following observations : :
“Another important fadet of Art.31C which has been emphasised by this Court is that there should be a close. nexus between the statute passed by the legislature and the twin objects mentioned in clauses (b) and (c). of Art.39. In approaching this problem and considering the question of néxus a narrow approach ought’ not to be
‘made because it is well settled that the courts should interpret 2 constitutional provision in order to suppress the mischief-and advance the object of the Act. The ‘dectrine of nexus ‘cannot be extended to such an extreme limit that the very purpose of Art.39(b) &(c) is defeated... ° If the nexus is present in the law then the protection of
7 Art.31C becomes complete and irrevocable,”
‘Tt was 5 also argued that by virtue. of the -various. amendment made by.the 1972 and 1977 Amendment Acts no process of distri- bution is involved. This argument cannot be accepted i in view of - the observations of this Court. by Crishna lyer,J. in State of
' Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & Ane. O etc. whiere the learned
Judge observed as follows’: a o [1978] 1S.C.R. 641.
hi
860 ©. |. | SUPREME CouRT REPORTS 7 (1984) 1 1 s. CR.
“The next question is: whether nationalisation can have nexus. with -distribution .......: To ‘distribute’; even in its simple dictionary meaning, ‘is to allot. to divide ‘into Classes or into groups ‘and ‘distribution’ embraces . arrangement, classification, placement, disposition, appor-
- tionment; the way in which items, a quantity, or the ,like is divided or apportioned; the system of dispersing goods throughout a community.” , . P
The ‘above observations were followed and d amplified i inL, Abu
_Lavur Bai’ 5 case (supra) thus :
“Tt is obvioui, therefore, in view of the vast range of.. transactions contemplated by the«word ‘distribution’ as ' mentiotied in the dictionaries referred to above, it will not be correct to construe the word ‘distribution’ in a purely ‘literal sense so.as to mean Only division of a particular persons. The words, apporiionment, allotment, allo- . ‘cation, classification, clearly fall within the broad sweep of the word ‘distribution’. . So. construed, < the. word ‘distribution’ as used in Art. 39(b) will include various facets, aspects, methodf and termonology ofa broadbased concept of distribution,”
ia : _ 4
‘In view of the aforesaid “observations, the challenge to the impugned provisions of the Acts no longer survives.
Moteover, what could have been a better’ mode of distribution contemplated by Art. 39(b) than to take away: the surplus agricultural ‘lands from the landlords and distribute it amongst the poor suffering landless tillers of the soil who had suffered for centuries’ as vassals slaves of the rich zamindars. The Acts have not touched the noa- A agricultural homestead lands or buildings standing thereon but has taken over only a major portion of the agrictitural lands, leaving with the landlords a-portion prescribed ‘within the ceiling limit, and distributed the exeéss to the tillers of the soil which along constitute their main source of sustenance and livelihood. The claim of the raiyats (erstwhile: landlords) that the Acts amount to confiscation is absolutely untenable and, if we. dare say, it amounts only to ‘shedding of crocodile tears and an anathema orataboo. We are therefore - .
convinced that the impugned ameridments were manifestly and poin-
_tedly. made for the ‘purpose of giving effect to and securing the -
“4 objects of Art.39(b) because these Acts clearly intended to distribute
: the, material resources of toé community, viz., the agricultural lands . ’ toa large. number of tillers of the soil in order to serve the common good of the aforesaid people. The challenge to the impugned Acts.
and ariendments must ‘therefore fail as the amendnits fall within the letter and spirit of Att. 3b).
¢
‘Finally, it was suggested that: the provision. of the , amendnient .
by. which the raiyat is enjoined to reside in the village itself for a large part of the year seems to be harsh and arbitrary. This argu- ment does not hold any water for two reasons— ‘
(D that when ‘once it, is found that the Act is meant to . promote: and effectuate the objectives contained in Art.39(b), which i is no doubt the case-here, no. other ground of challenge weuld survive because by virtue. of Art.31C any Act which seems to secure the objects « of Art.39(b) cannot be challenged being violative of: Art. 14, 49 or 31..
(2) Secondly, the provision that the land-owner should’. reside in the village is both salutary and beneficial, the object being that if a raiyat wants to cultivate his own land he must give his whole-hearted attention to - the said land instead of living the village and carrying on other avocations of life.
One of us, (Fazal Ali, J.) had clearly adverted to this aspect of ‘the matter in Sri Sri Kalimata T hakurani’ S case (supra) and observed as follows -— FS
“The dominant object, of the proviso is to abolish’ ~ the age-old institutions of absentee Jand-holder by insisting that the cultivator to whom land is allotted must give full and complete attention to the soil and-as a result of -which there will be maximum utilisation of the agricul-.
_ tural resources which would increase production... veetie - It is obvious that the tenant has to remain in the village for the purpose of cultivating the londs. sowing the seeds, . growing it and harvesting it. These processes would
- doubtless requirs the presence of thh tenant for a greater © part of the year which i is | What the proviso predicates, ‘At
MADHUSUDAN ¥. UNION (Fazal, Ali, J.) 861 |
862 - ; | § sGPREME COURT REPORTS - [1984] 1 s.c.r, the tenant is permitted to leave the village for more than half theyear then the very purpose of giving such a vast area for cultivation to a tenant will be foiled. Moreover the’proviso merely insists that the tenant should. remain in the village or its periphery for ‘greater part of the year’ which appears to.be not only responsible but absolutely essential if the land has to: be cultivated in a scientific manner in order to yield the maxImum possible produ-. ~ ction, which ‘would result in better and equitable distribution of agricultusal products for the use of the people, of the country.” .
.
For the reasons given above all, the contentions raised by the petitioners fail and the writ -petition is dismissed but without any . order as to costs.
Pr
S.R. Petitions desmissed.