LexCHANDER SEKHAR SINGH BOI ETC. versus THE STATE OF ORISSA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
279 A CHANDER SEKHAR SINGH BOI ETC. v. THE STATE OF ORISSA ETC. November 5, 1971 [S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, S. C. Roy ANO B G. K. MITTER, JJ.J c D E F G H Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 3 JA-'Modification', scope of-Appli- cability of second proviso when provisions regarding ceiling limit--are not in force. Courts-Jurisdiction to go into vires of provisions not brought into• force. · Bhagchar tenure, nieaning of. By the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1965. the Ori~sa Land Rtforms Act, 1960, was amen<ji:d by substituting new Chaps. III and IV for tile original Chaps. JII and IV. By notifications issued under s. 1(3) of the Act, under which different dates may be appointed by notification for the coming into force of different provisions of the Act, the Act and Chap. Ill, as amended, were brought into force; but no notification bringing into force the provisions of Chap. IV dealing with ceiling was issued. The appellant challenged the validity of the Act. The High Court held that Chap. llJ was ·1 valid piece of legislation but that Chap. IV was unconsti- tutional and invalid. In appeal to this Court it was contendeJ : (I) that the provisions of Chap. III were invalid because they were not protected by the provisions of Art. 31(A)ll) of the Constitution as they do not provide for the acquisition by t.he State of any estate or of any rights therein or the ex- tinguishment or modification of any such rights; (2) if the 11rovisions of Chap. Jll amounted to acquisition market value was payable as com- pensation under the second proviso to the Art_icfe and not the compen~ sation as fixed in s. 28 of the Act; (3) Chap. IV was ultra vir_, the provisions of the second proviso to Art. 31-A(l) of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : ( 1) The provisions of Chap. III of the Act modify the land- lord's substantive ri,,ghts in various respects inasmuch as they enable the determination of resumable land which the land owner would be entitled to cultivate himself, and reg3.rding non-resumable land, the tl.!nant is given a right to acquire it on payment of compensatio~. Therefore, these provisions fall within the protection given by Art. 31-A(l) of the Con- stitution. f286 D·F] Atma Ram v. State of Puniab, [19591 Supp. 1 S.C.R. 748 753; 767, followed. (2) The second proviso to Art.. 31A(l) is not applicable because .. no ceiling limit within the meaning of the proviso to Art. 31-A(l) has been fixecl. Till a notification under s. 1 (3) of the Act is issued bringing in force the provisions of Chap. IV it cannot be said that there is any ceiling limit applicable to the appellant under any law for the ,time being in force. Moreover the essence of personal cu1tivation as used in the proviso is cultivation by or on hehalf of the owner of the land. The appellant is the owner of Bbagchar lands, , and under· this tenure the cultivator shares his crop with the owner. A crop-sharer does not cultivate on bem!f of the landlord and therefore the Bhagchar lands are not undelr the appellant'• person cultiva!fon. [287 B-D; 288 A-Bl 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. (3) The High Court should not have gone into question of the validity of Chap. IV Courts ordinarily ought not to go into ti>, question .if the validity of an Act or a provision of an Act unless it has been brought into force. Till then such a question would be academic, because. no body could be aggrieved by a provision of Jaw wh_ich is dormant and which cannot be enforcod. Therefore, this Court would not go into the question whether the provisions of Chap. IV were ultra vires or not /,282 O- F]. State of Orissa y. Chander Sekhar, [1970] I S.C.R. 593, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 854, 1028, 1033 and 1097 of 1966, 1866 to 1867 and 2487 of 1969. A B Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 30, 1967 C .of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. Nos. 329 of 1965 etc. Somnath Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 854 of 1968) and respondent no. 2 (in C.A. No. 1867 of 1969). C. B. Agqrwa/a, S. P. Nayar for R. N. Sachthey, for the res- D -pondent (in C.A. No. 854 of 1968) and the apJl'~llant (in C.As. Nos. 1028, 1033 and 1097 of 1968, 1865 to 1867 and 2487 of 1969). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C.J. The appellan~, Chander Sekhar Singh Bhoi, in Civil Appeal No. 854 of 1968, filed a petiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.