Shri Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe Yavatmal v. The State of Bombay

Gajendragadkar J. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. -These two writ petitions

have been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and they seek to challenge the validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 99 of 1958 (here-after called the Act). The impugned Act in substance is intended to extend to Vidarbha region and Cutch area which had then become a part of the Greater Bi-Lingual State of Bombay the provisions of the Bom-bay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act XIII of 1956). The preamble to the impugned Act shows that it was intended to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and sites used for allied purposes in the two areas of the State of Bombay and to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands. In extending the provisions of the earlier Bombay Act XIII of 1956 to the two areas the legislature has conformed to the pattern set up by the said earlier Act. The policy underlying the Act and the object intended to be achieved by it are the same and the method adopted in achieving that object is also the same. The validity of the earlier Bombay Act (XIII of 1956) was challenged before this Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay (1) but the challenge failed and the Act was held to be constitutional. One of the points which arose for decision in that case was whe-ther the impugned Act was protected by Art. 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution, and the answer to that ques-tion depended upon the determination of another issue which was whether the lands to which the said Act applied were an "estate" as required by Art. 31A(2)(a). In dealing with that question this Court held that the word "estate" as defined by s. 2(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, clearly applied to the lands I covered by the Act and so Art. 31A(2)(a) was applic-r96I able. Having regard to this decision the only point which Mr. Limaye attempted to raise before us in Shri Mahadeo Paikaji Iiolhe support of the two writ pet,itions is that the lands Yavatmal belonging to the two petitioners are not an "estate" v. within the meaning of Art. 31A(2)(a), and so the im-The State of pugned Act is outside the protection of Art. 31A. If Bombay this contention is not upheld then it is obvious that G . d-dk the writ petitions must fail; if the said contention is a;en raga ar upheld then of course the other contentions raised by the two writ petitions against the validity of certain specific provisions of the Act may fall to be consi-dered.

The two petitioners are Namdeorao Baliramji and Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe respectively. The first one resides at Amraoti and the second at Y eotmal. The first owns about 80 acres dry lands situated in Amraoti out of which 43 acres are under his personal cultiva-tion and the rest in the possession of the tenants.

The second petitioner owns about 1168 acres dry lands situated in Yeotrnal out of which 400 acres are under his personal cultivation and the rest with the tenants.

The lands in both the cases are charged to the pay-ment of land revenue. The case for both the petitio-ners is that the lands thus held by them are not an "estate" within the meaning of Art. 31A(2)(a).

Article 31A(2)(a) provides, inter alia, that the ex-pression "estate" shall in relation to any local area have the same meaning as that e4pression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area. The existing local law, it is cornrnon ground, is the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955), and so it is necessary to find whether the lands belonging to the petitioners can be said to be an 'estate' within the meaning of the said Code. Before we do so, however, it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant definitions in the impugned Act. Section 2(17) of the Act defines land as meaning, inter alia, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and includes the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to such land.

Section 2(18) defines a land-holder as meaning a '96' tenure-holder whom the State Government has dec-Shi Mahadeo lared on account of the extent and value of the land I'aikaji /(o/he or his interests therein to be a land-holder for the

Yavatmal purposes of this Act. Now, s. 2(7) of the Madhya

v. Pradesh Land Revenue Code in question defines a The State 01 holding as meaning, inter alia, a parcel of land scpa-

Hotnbay _ rately assessed to land revenue, ands. 2(20) defines a Gajendragadlm ;. tenure-holder as meaning a person holding from the

State Government as a Bhumiswami or a Bhumidari. Chapter XII of the Code deals with tenure-holders. Section 145 provides that there shall be two classes of tenure-holders of lands held from the State, namely, Bhumiswami and Bhumidari. Section 146 deals with Bhumiswami. It provides that "every person who at the coming into force of this Code belongs to any of the classes specified in clauses (a) to (f) of the said section shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and is subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code". Amongst these classes is the class covered by cl. (e) which rela-tes to persons in respect of lands held by them as occu-pants in Berar. Thus, reading the relevant definitions along with the provisions of s. 146 of t.he Code it would follow that the land in the possession of the Bhumiswami who is a tenure-holder is in substance an estate. It is true that tho word "estate" as such has not been employed in the Code, but it must be borne in mind that Art. 31A(2)(a) refers not only to estate but also to its local equivalent. It was realised that in many areas the existing law relating to land tenur-es may not expressly define an estate as such though the said areas had their local equivalents described and defined. That is why the relevant provision of the Constitution has deliberately used both the word "estate" as well as its "local equivalent". The petitioners hold lands under the State and they pay land revenue for the lands thus held by them. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that under the existing law relating to land tenures the lands held by them fall within the class of the 100111 equiva-lents of the word "estate" l1S contemplated by Art. 31A(2)(a). If that is so the contention raised by r96r Mr. Limaye that the impugned Act is not protected by A rt. 31A ' cannot succeed. As we have already indica-Shri !vlahadeo ted it is not disputed that if Art. 31A applies there Paikaji f{olhe Yavatmal can be no further challenge to the validity of the im-v, pugned statute. ·1 he State of

The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismiss-Bomhay ed with costs, one set of hearing costs. G . d d' a;en raga 11ar Petitions dismissed.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

v.

April 4.

ABDUL KHADER

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR,

K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA

AYYANGAR, JJ.)

Externment Order-Indian citizen going to Pakistan for a short period and coming back with Pakistan passport and Indian visa, if becomes a foreigner-Conviction for overstaying, if sustain ...

able-Foreigners Act, I946 (r3 of I946), ss. 3(2)(c), 8, 9-Citizen-ship Act, I955 (LV II of I955), s. 9-Constitution of India, Art.

5(a).

The respondent was born in India in r924 and had lived there all along till about the end of r954. He had been paying rent for his shop in India for ten years upto about r958 and his . family was and had always been in India. At the end of r954 or the beginning of r955 he went to Pakistan from where he returned on January 20, r955, on a passport granted by the Pakistan Government which had a visa endorsed on it by the Indian authorities permitting him to stay in India up to April, 1955, The respondent applied to the Central Government for extension of the time allowed by the visa but the records did not show what order, if any, had been made on it. As the respon-dent had stayed beyond the time specified in the visa, he was on September 3, 1957, served with an order made by the Govern-ment of Andhra Pradesh under s. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, requiring him to leave India. The order described him as a Pakistan national. On his failure to comply ,with this order

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: ·writ Petitions Nos. 93 and 125 of 1959.

Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

V. M. Lim.aye, E. Udayarathnam and S.S. Shukla, fo1 the petitioners.

1961 H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,

R. Ganapathy Iyer and D. Gupta, for the respondent. Shri M ahadeo Paikaji K olhe W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the

Yavatmal Interveners.

v. 1961. April 4. The Judgment of the Court was The State of

Bombay delivered by