LexBALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
258 BALMADIES PLANT.£\TIONS LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU April 19, 1972 (with connected appeals) [S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1951)-Artlc/e 31A 2(a) (I) and .(111)-Estate- Fortsts In Janmam Lands-Requirement of cl. (ill) also need not be satis· fied-Agrarlan Reform-Acquisition of forests In lanmam lands- Mere transfer of ownership or augmentation of resource~ oj the State not sufficient to show object of agrarian reform. Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Act 24 of 1969)-Constitutionality-Resettlemenl of 1926- lf has the effect of conversion into ryotwari lands. A B. c The appellants and the petitioners challenged the vires of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, D on the ground that it was violative of articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Con- · stitution. Theff case was that their lands in the Gudalur Taluk, in the State of Tamil Nadu, were prev'ously Janmam estates, but, subsequently became ryotwari estates, especially after the Resettlement of 1926, •and as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to tb<Se lands; that so far as the forest areas in the Jan111ani lands-in question were concern .. ed they did. not constitute "estate"; and that the acquisition of the lands was not for implementing agrarian reform• and, therefore, did not get F. the protection of article 31A. HELD : that the pro\isions of s. 3 of the Act in so far as they related to the transfer of forests in Janmam estates to the government were not protected by article 3 IA. and, being violative of the Constitution had to be struck down; and that the vire.< of the Act in other respects had to be upheld. (i) The effect of the Resettlement of 1926 was to retain the lanmam estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them into ryotwari es- tates. There was merely a change of nomenclature. Government Janmam land6 were caJied the new hold.ings while private Janmam lands were called the old holdings. In respect of Janmabhogam (Janmi's share) relating to government Janmam lands, the order further directed that the amount to be paid to the government should include both the taram assess- ment and Janmabhogam. It is difficult to infer from theso that Janmam rights in the lands in question were extinguished and converted into ryotwari estates. The use of the word Janmabhogam, on the contrary, indicates that the rights of .Tenmis were kept in tact. [271BJ Kottarathil Kochuni and Others '" The State of Madras and Others, [1960] 3 S.CR. 887, Karimbil Kunhilkoman v. State of Kera/a, [1962] 1 Supp. S. C.R. 847 and Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi, I.LR. f3 Madras 89. referred to. The grant of a right of relinquishment to a Janmi would not by itself convert jt~nmam rights in the lands into ryotwari estate. [272A-Bl F G H A B c D E F G H BALMh.DIES PLANTATIONS LTD. V. TAMIL NADU 259 (Khanna, J.) Further, apart from the lands in question, there are no Janmam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu (Maclras). To hold that the Janmam rights in the lands ceased to exist after the Resettlement of 1926 would have the effect of rendering the words, in clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31A, wherein there is a reference to Janmam rights in the State of Madras meaningless and without any purpose. [272·D) (ii) As Janmam lands fall under clause (2) (a) (i) of article 31A it is not essential to snow that the requirements of clause (2)(a) (iii) too arc satisfied for such lands and it would make no difference whether forests are a part of the Janmam lanes. All lands which are part of a Janmam estate of a Janmi in the State of Madras and Kerala would consti- tute "estate" as mentioned in Clause (2) (a) (i) of Article 3 lA. [273-E] (iii) The 'object and general scheme of the Act is to abolish inter- mediaries between the state and the cultivator and to help the actual culti- vator by giving him the status of directs relationship between himself and the Sr.le. The Act. as such. in its broad outlines, &hould be held to be a measure of agrarian reform and· woulc! consequently be protected by article 3 lA of the Constitution. Therefore, it is immune from attack on the ground of bdng violative of articles 14, 19 or 31. [274-A] . Vajraye/u Madaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras & A.nr. [1965) 1 S.C.R. 614, referred to. (iv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.