LexDATTATRAYA GOVIND MAHAJAN & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
D
E
F·
G
H
790
DATTATRAYA GOVJND MAHAJAN & ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
January 27, 1977
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER
AND P. N. SH!NGHAL, JJ.]
Maliaraslitra Agricultural LaT1ds (Ceiling of Holdings) Act. 1961 as ame11ded
/1y the Maharashtra Agric11lt11ral Lands
(LoweriT1g of
Ceiling of
Holdings)
AmeT1dment Acts 1972 and 1975 (Maharaslitra Act~ 21 of 1975 and 47 cf 1975
and 2 of 1976)-Ss. 2(11A), 2(22), 3.4.5.(1) rlw Schedule I and Sectio11 6
Principal Act and the \'Grious amending Acts, placed in tl1e Ninth Schedule-
Whether the Act as amended, in so far as it creates an artificial family unit and
fixes a ceili111< on holding of land by sucli family unit is void and violatfre of the
second proviso to clause (I) of Art. 31A and not sal'ed
by
tl1'
i11111111nisi11g
provision enacted in A rt. 3 lB.
Constitutio11 of !11dia, 1950-Art. 31H, interpretation of.
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 3l(A)(l), Second prol'iso-Wheth,·r co11-
fer.s a Funda111en1al Right.
•
Constitution of Lndia 1950 (Sei·enteenth Amendment) A ct, 1964, S. 3-Ex-
r:lanation----Construction of.
Interpretation of Statutes-Construction of a "pro1'i.\o" to a section or clause
in an PllGCf!JU'llf.
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 included in the protectil·c umbrella uf rile
iVi11th Schedule, subsequent to the decision of the Jligll Court declaring certain
provisions thereof as unconstitutional~A rt. 31 lJ b:!ing retrospectii·e is entitled to
the iJnn1unity conferred by it.
'
U.P. lmpMition of Ceiling Oil Land Holdings Acr (Act Nu.
l)
1971
as
amended by Act No. 18 of 1973 and Act No. 2 of 1975, all i11c/11dcd in the
Ninth Schedule-The question, "'hether s.5(6) is violarii•c of second provi.w to
clause (l) of Art. 31A'. of the Constitution cannot be assailed by reawn ·of
inununity {'flaC!Pd in .Art. 31R.
The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, J 961 which
\Vas enacted in in1plementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy con-
tained in clauses (b) and ( c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution imposed a maximum
ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and pro-
vided for the acquisition of land held in excess of the ceiling and for the distri-
bution of such excess land to landless and other persons with a Yiew to securin:;
the distribution of agricultural land in a manner wJ:!ich would best observe the
common good of the people.
Maharashtra Amendment Act 21 of 1975 effected
radical amendments in the principal Act by lowering the ceiling on agricultunil
holding and created a concept of artificial family unit for fixing ceiling on. hold-
ings of agricultural land.
The person as defined in s.2(22) r/w. s.2(ll) a1;d
his spouse and their minor daughters were clubbed together for the purpose of
constituting a family unit as defined in the Explanation to s.4 sub-section (1)
and all lands held by each member of the family unit whether jointly or sepa-
rately were aggregated together, and by a fiction of law deemed to be held by
the family unit.
The appellant landlords in the State of Maharashtra preferred writ fl''lit!Om
in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of the
Principal Act, as amended on various grounds since the effect of the provisions
of the pricipal Act as amended by the three Maharashtra Acts, viz. 21 of 197 5,
47 of 1975 and 2 of 1976 was to expropriate a part of the lands belonging to
concept of family unit and fixed a ceiling on holding of land by such family unit.
it was violative of the second proviso to clause (l) Art. 3 IA and was not saved
by the immunising provision enacted in Art. 31 B.
The High Court dismissed
them.
The main contention was that in so far as the Act created an artifici"I
,.
"
... ..,-__
--=---.. •
..
l
D. G. MAHAJAN 1'. MAHARASHTRA (Bhagwati, J.)
791
the petition holding that Art. 31B afforded complete immunity to the provisions
of the principal Act.
In appeal by special leave to this Court, the appellant contended : ( 1) On
a true construction of Art. '3 lB a pOBt constitution enactment such as the Act
is protected from invalidation only when it merely transgresses a restriction on
legislative competence imposed by any provision of that Part and is therefore
inconsistent with such provision.
The larger ground of validation curing gene-
rally •ny inconsistency with any provision of PJ!rt Ill is available only in casExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.