MADHUSDAN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 849

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, M.P. THAKKAR

Case summary

(hereinafter referred to as the· '1953 Act')· could not be challenged·the . ) ·that the total ceiling area allowed to· be retained by the 1.

Judgment text

MADHUSDAN SINGA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OR. S. • November 22, 1983 • [S. MuRTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M. P:Tf:! AKKAR~ JJ. ) . · west Bengal Land'Reforms Act, 19~5 as amended _by A1nendment Acts of 1972 and 1977-Sections 14M, ! 7(c) 17(6) and 2/B ofconstitutional validit,1' of. The petitioners, in this round of'challenge assailed _the validity ofSCction J4M, 17(c), l7(1i) and 21 B of the West Bengal Landi Reforms Act, calllng"to :their aid certain obscfvations made by this Court in Sri Sri Kalin1ata Thak1irani . and Sri Sri Raglrunath Jain & Ors etc v. Union Of India·& Ors.. - [1981) 2 S. C. R. 950 and the· decisions ill Mintrrva Mills· Ltd. v. Union-of india & Or_s. [1981] . 1 S. C. R. 206 and. Haman Rao & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & Ors, (1981] 2 S. C. R. I. The petitioners raised tJ:ie following p_oints : (i} that the total ceiling area aIJowed to b_e.

retained by the 1953 Act -in respect of agricultural land in klias possession_ of the· Raiyats Was drastically reduced; (ii) that ~Ithongh ihe status of raiyats. was co~ferrcd ofl the erstwhile Jahdlords which was heritable and transferable,' th~ ins. titution of bargards was. introduced in Order to enable the_raJyats to cultivate their lands on a 50:50 basis" . . and, ,• (iii) that while the Amendment Act of 1972 had given a ·right to 'the '· raiyats ·to resume the lands given to the . baraardars for th~ir p:rsonal ·~ ·cultivation; the subsequerit amendments. took awaY this right arid made the . right of the bargardar both' heritable and transferable causing sericius d'etfiment >. and prejudice to the· raiyats. " ·· · ' · Dismissing the petitions, the Court. c · . HELD : 1 1 The impugne_d amend1nents were· manifeStly and p~intedly · 1nade for. 1he ptlrpose of_gfvin~ effect to and securing the objects.

of Article 39(b) because:these A'Cts clearJy intended to ,distribute the' niaterial resources of the Community viz, the agricultural land's to a large number oftillerS"Ofthe soil . iri ·order to Serye the common good of the afores~id peOple. The Amendments '. fall .. within tfie letter and spirit of Artide 39(b) of the -C-onstitution. The ·Acts· H ' . _,\, j have not touched the non-agricultural home stead land. S, or ·buildirigs of ·ti1e Land owriers standing thereon but has taken over Qnly a ri1ajor portion of the asdcultura1 l~nds,-Ieaviri~ . with the lan4Iords a portion prescribed within the;. ceiling. limit-and distribU;ted the excess to the ti. liefs 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 c e chosen by the landlord, ·. No serious grievanc~ was made before us ·regarding the provisions of sections 4·to 6 excepting 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. ~uch· a plea has to be stated only to berejected because the lan. dlords who had huge land~ comprising home-. stead · lands orthose appertainillg to buildings or structures and non-agri- . cultu~al lands in kbas 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 ! rends· 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 • · 0 and the 1972 and 19J7 Ameridment Acts suffered; However, during the course •of· arguments the challenge remained confined only to c~rtain sp~cific amendments made by the 1972 and 1977 Amendment Acts and the points raised before us may b. e summarised thus : · (!

) ·that the total ceiling area allowed to· be retained by the 1. 9. 53 Act· in respect of agricultural land i. n khas ' : possession. ofthe raiyats was drastically reduced,· (2) that although the :stat~s of raiyats was conferred on the erstwhile . landlords .. whkh was heritable and transferable, the· institution of bargardar·s was intro• duced in order to enable the raiyats to cultivate their lands on a -so:so basis, and · ' . . . (3) that while the Amendment Act or 1972 had given a right to the rniyats to resume the lands given to the 854 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS . [1984] l S,C. R. bargardars for their pcrsoual cultivation, the subse-' quent amendments took away this right and made the right of the bargardar bofh heritable and trans· · . ferable ·causing serious detriment and prejudice to . the raiyats. We now procc_ed to refer only to ·those provisions whose ·con· stitut_ional validity ha~ _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 : c. "14M. Ceiling area-(1) The ceiling,area shall be,- • (a) . irt 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'sufviving member of a family, 2. 50. standard hectares; . .. {c) in the case ofii raiyat having a family consisting of two or more _but not more than five members, . 5. 00 standard hectares; (d) in the care of a raiyat having afamily ~o~sisting of more than five· members, 5. 00 standard heel· ares; pius 0. 50 standard hectare 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 7o00 standard hectares; (e) in the case of any other raiyat, 7. 00 standard " . ·h.

ectares; (2) Notwithstanding anything· contained in sub-section (1), where, in the family of a raiyat, ·there are niore raiyats than O)le, the ceiling area for the raiyat, together with the ceiling area of all the other- raiyats ... iri the family shall not, in any case, exceed,- (a) . where the number of' members of such family does not exceed five, 5. 00 standard hectares; .. • MADHUSUDAN v. UNION (Fazai Ali, J. ) SSS (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 aggregaie of the . ceiling area shall not, in any · case, exceed 7. 00 standard hectares. (3) For the purpose of s·ub-section (2), all the lands oi. vned individually by the ·members of. a family or jointly by some or all the members of such family · shall ·be deemed to \Je owned by the raiyats in the family. " . It was submitted that the drastic reduction or'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. J4M(I). and cls. (a) and (b) of s. 14M(2), as extracted above; which worked serious inju~tice to the tenants. ·A strong exceptibn 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 va~id-ity of s. 17(6). was also challenged ~n the ground that the legislation was confiscatory. ;_. I . ' · The provisions of the proviso to cl. (8) of s'. 2 added by the 1977 · Amendment Act to the 19S5 Act was seriously assailed. The. said proviso runs thus. : "Provided that such person or member of his family res'ides for the greater. part of the year in the locality • where the land is situated ·and the principal source of his · incom". is woduced from such land. '. ' · A similar challenge was made to the addition of- s.

2lB in the 1955 Act by the 1977 Amendinent Act. On similar grounds the aforesaid provisfons were also challenged in the decision of this Court · in Sri Sri Kplimata Thakurani's case (supra) which did not meet with any . success. It was, however, pointed out by the coun;el 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 Schedu! e in the Consiitution· of India and were therefore, immune from challenge. To some extent the counsel is . A right in his statement that such an inapvertent mistake has crept in due to oversight because the 1955 Act and the Amendment Acts of · l972 and 1977 were added to tl;e Ninth Schedule. by the 4th Amend, ment of. the Constitution of 1976 being entry· numbers IS I to i 85.

Hence, it could be reaso"nably argued that the, constitutional v~lidity · of the provisions, menti6ned above~ was jus(iciable and could be :gone into. · Befofe dealing wi. th these arguments it may be necessary .. to extract. certain· portions of the decision of this ·Court in Sri Sri Ka/imata Thakurani's· case (supra) where this Court after dealing with ·the various provisjon . . of the tenant has been considerably reduced by the Amendment . Act of 1972.. Thus, the tenant having . a small area. guaranteed to him for his 'unit, he should ·hcve at v. ·. least fuller and more effective rights to get. that area cultivated by him or ·even .. by . a bargardar <Jf his choice subject to. resuming the same, if the bargardar surrenders. E. or aba_ndons the land......... Unfortunately, however, · . though the provisions of sub,seetions (3), (4J and (5) of s. 20B, which ·is only a penal secti~n) ·perilously border on • .

arbitrarfnsss and amounts t~ serious· curbs on the fund~ niental right of the cultivator to pursue his occupation, ·we cannot·however strike down 'these . provisions because . they are contained in the Amendment Act of 1972. which has been placed in the Ninth Schedule prior to . April 54, 1973, and therefore fall within the protective umbrella and are immune from challenge. " A capital was therefore made out of the abo~e observations in • Sri Sri Kalimata Thakuran. i's case. Reliance was also plaeed on a decision of.. this. Court in Sasan,ka Sekhar 'Maity & Ors. v Union j 0 India &. Ors(') where A. P. Sen,J. , speaking for the'Court, made the following observatiom :. · ' " (! ) [198014 s. c. c. 716. Tn order, therefore, to reconcile the fundamental • rights of the community as 'a whole w!

th the individual rights ofthe more fortunate section of the community, it was fundamentally necessary to make the impugned Jegis- · lation to serure to a certain extent the rights oftliat part of'the community whjch is denied its legitimate share in the means of livelihood, • · "The broad objectives o& any legislation relating to agrarian reforms are ma. terially four, viz. , (I) to maximise the agricultural output and' productivity, (2) a fafr. and equitable distribution of agricultural income, (3( increase in employment oppor\unities, and (4) a sosiai'or ethic,al order. Though the· abolition of the zal)lidari 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 11·ave·b~en achieved through progressiv. e legislation. '' . D Thes~ observations put ihe petitioners completely out of court -) ,demolish the contentions advanced ~efore us.. The four objectives.

mentioMd 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 deci. sion in the case of Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani (supra) is concerned, in view of the crystallisation of ihe law in • Minerva Mills, Warnan Rao (supra) and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing 2 Co. v. M/S. BharatCoking Coal Ltd. & Anr. ( ) cases 'Which have been followed and amplified in the recent decision of this Court in State 1 of Tamil Nadu, etc v. L Abu Kavur Bai & Ors. ,( ) the matter is no ~. longer res iiitegra and even if there was· an ·inadvertent ·error in the observations of this Court in Sri Sri Kalima/a Thakurani's case, the same has become redund'ant as the impugned provisions can be supp· orted as squarely.. ~alling within the four corners of Art. 39{b) of the Constitution as the inteniion of the Acts is to secure and promote the objectives ·contained in Art. 39(b).

In this connection, we ·might •extract a few observations from L. Abu Kavur Bai & Ors. (supra) : ' • I ~ (I) J1983) I $ C. C. 147. • . " (2) ,c. A. N0s. 957-966 (NJ of 1973. etc. decided on 31. 10. 83. ' MADHUSUDAN v. UNION (Fazal Ali, J,) . &59 ''In view of Art. 31C, wliich 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. 31 C was not merely a prag· matic approach io socialism but imbibed a theoretical aspect by which all means of production, key industries, mines, minerTils, public supplies. utilities and services may be taken gradually under public owners~ip. management and control. " Itwas further argued by the petitioners that there was no ~! ear nexus between the Act and the. objectives contained in Art. 39(b). · We are, however, unable to agree with this argument becau.

se the ~ question of nexus has been clearly exl? ounded by this.. Court both in • the Minerva Mills· and Sanjeev Coke Manufaeturing Co. 's cases as • · also in the case of L. Abu Kavqur Bai & Ors. (supra) where a Cons· titution Bench of this Court, speaking through one of us (Fazlll Ali,J. ) , made the following observations : · '. 'Another important fadet of Art. 31C which has b;;en emphasised by this Court. is that there should be a close uexus between the statute pa5Sed by the legislature and the twin objects mentioned in. clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39. In approaching this problem and. considering the qu·estion of nexus a narrow approach ought° not to be · made·· because it . is well settled that the courts should interpret a 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 Art. 31C becpmes complete and irrevocable. " It was also argued that by virtue. of the . various amendments made by the 1972 and 1977 Amendment Acts no pr~cess of distribution is involved. This argument cannot be accepted iu view of the observations of this Court by Crishna lyer,J. in siate, of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & . Anr. (1) etc. where the learned Judge observed as follows·: · \ , I ' (1) [1978] 1 S. C. R. 641. .. 860 SUPREME COl/RT REPORTS . [1984] I s. c. R. "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, piaceinent, disposition, appor· tionmetlt;. the way in which items, aquantity, or the . like is divided or apportioned; the systeni of dispersing goods · throu~hout . a co111munity.

" • · Theabove observations were followed and amplified inL. Abu Lavur liai's case {supra) thus. : · ,.. ·"It is obvioui, therefore, iil view of the vast range of.. transactions contemplated by the ·word 'distribution' as . mentfoI'i. ed in the dictionaries referred to above, it will not • be correct to construe the word 'distribution' in a purely nteral sense. so . as to mean Only division of a particular persons. The words, appuriionment, · allotment, allo- . ·cation; classification, clearly fall within the broad sweep ..... of ihe ·word 'distribution'. So construed, · the. ·word \ 'distribution' as used in Art. 39(b) will include various '1 facets, aspects, methodf and termcinology of a broad· based concept of distribution/' · . ' \ . . ' In view of the aforesaid observations, the challenge tci the impugned provisions of the Acts no longer s~ryives. Moreover, what could have been a better·mode of distributiOn contemplated by Art.

39(b) than io take away the surplus agricultural 'larids from the '1andlords and disti;ibute it amongst the poor suffering landless tillers of the soil who bad suffered for centuries ·as vassals slaves of the rich zamindars. The Acts have not touched the nofi- A. agriculturai homestead lands or buildings standing thereon but bas taken over only a ·major portion of the agricultural lands, leaving with the . landlords a-poriion prescribed wit}lin the ceiling limit, anil . G distrjbuted the excess . to th'e tillers of the soil which along constitute their main source of . sustenance and livelihood. The claim of the ~aiyats {erstwhile ·landlords) that the Acts amount to con6scation is absolutely unte~able and, if we. dare say, it amounts only to ··shedding of crocodile tears and an. anathema or a taboo. · We are therefore · . -P_,· . · convinc~d ihat the impugned ameridni. e;1ts were nianifestly and poin- ) . ·. tedly made for the ·purpose of giving effect to and securing the :~ .

• MADHUSUDAN . v. UNION (Fazo/, Ali, J. ) , 861 objects of Art. 39(b) because thesc Acts ciearJy intended to distribute the material· resources of toe community, vii. , the agricultural lands . to a large. number ortillers of the . soil in order to serve the common good of the aforesaid people. ·The challenge to the impugned Acts and amendments mus. I therefore fail as the amendnts fall within the le. tter and spirit of Ari. 39(b). .. • Finafly, it w<ts suggested that· the. provis! on of the amendment 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. _ Th. is argument does not hold any water for two reasons- (! ) that when once itis found that the Act is meant to promote· and. effectuate the objectives contained in Art. 39(b), which is no doubt the ca,e. here,. no other ground of challenge weuld survive b. ecause. by virtue o(Art. 3! C any Act whicb seems to secure the objects· of Art.

39(b) cannot be challenged being violative. of· • • Art. 14, 19 or JI.. (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 Jarid he must give his whole-hearted attentio. n to the said land instead of liv'ing the village and carrying on other avocations of life. One o. f us; (Fazal Ali,J. ) had· clearly adverted to this aspect of the matter in Sri Sri Kalimatq Thakurani's case (supra) and observed as follows :- . - . ''The dominant object. of the p'roviso is to abolish the age,-old institutions of absentee Jand-hoider by insisting that the 'cultivator to whom land is allotted must give full and . complete attention to the soil and a& a result of . which there will be maximum utilisation of the agricul: tural resources whic_h would . incre~se produciion...... ·'· . It is obvious that the tenant has to remaiQ iri the village for the purpose of cultivating the Jonds.

sowing the seed~, growing it and harvesting it. These processes would . doubtless requirs the. presence of thh tena"nt for a greater ·· par\ of the year which is what the proviso predicates. If. 862 ' SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS (1984) 1 5. C. R. the tenant is permitted to leave the village for more than half the·year then _the very purpose of giving such a vast area for cultivation to a tenant will be foiled. Moreover the·proviso merely insists thafthe tenant should. rem_ain in the village or its periphery for 'greater part of the year' which appearsto. be not only responsible but ab'solutely essential _if the land has to be cultivated in a scientific B manner . in order to yield the maxlmum possible produ- . ction, which ·would result in better and equitable distribution of agricultusal products for the use of the people, of the country. " c For the reasons given above aU. the contentions raised by the petitioners fail and the writ . petition is ~ismissed but without any order as to costs.

• S. R. Petitions desmissed. . ' •