LexFIDA ALI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.340
FIDA ALI AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
April 30, 1974
{A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI
AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.j
Jamtnu and Kasl1111ir Agrarian Rejornu Act, 1972-Whether tile Act is pro-
Jccted by Art. 3 lA of the Constitution..
A
B
In this \Vrit petition, the constitutional valid{ty of the Jammu and Kashmir
Agrarian Reforms Act. 1972 and the rules framed thereunder has been chal-
'lenged. The short question for determination is whether the Act is protected
under Art. 31A of the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jarnmu and
Kashmir, providing for a scheme of agrarian reforms.
c
According to the petitioners, who are landowners in the State of Jam mu and
Kashmir, they have been rendered landless by the Act.
They further allege that
the proposed compensation is illusory and the exclusion of an "orchard" from
the definition of land is motivated and that the Act is not a piece of legislation
bearing on agrarian reform and therefore. it is not protected by Art. 3 lA of the
.Constitution.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD :-(1) From the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the Act contains
a programme of agrarian reforms in taking stock of the land in the State which
is not in personal cultivation and which though
1in pcrsona:l cultivation is in excess
.of the ceiling area of 12~- acres. The main focus of the Act i~ to see that the
tillers, who form the backbone of the agricultural economy, are provided with
land for the purpose of personal cultivation subject to the ceiling provision.
[345H·346B]
The Act makes effective provisions for creating a granary of land at the
.disposal of the State for equitable distribution subject to the limit, amongst
the tillers of the soil and even the owners who would make 'person::i.l cultiva-
tion' of the same within the n1eaning of the Act.
[346B-C]
(2) In the present case. there is no discrimination in favour of the orchard-
-Owners because in fixing the ceiling areas_ land and orchards are buth included
D
E
and the definitions of 'land' and 'orchard' under the Act clearly permit of
some special treatment to orchards in view of schen1e of the entire Act.
F
Further. there is reason for excluding 'orchards' which is a compact area
having fruit trees, grown thereon in such number that they preclude it from
'being used for any other agricultural purpose. Further, orchards have spe-
cial significance in the State. Therefore. there is no discrimination; and since
the Act has been passed with the definite object of agrarian reforms, it C<\nnot
be successfully chalJenged on the J?;round of violation of Art. 14; 19 and Art. 31
-Of the Constituti0n.
[346D-347C]
O><IGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1485 o~ 1973.
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution c~ India.
M. C. Chitale, Naunit Lal and Lalita Kohli, for the petitioners.
M. K Ramamurthy and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
GoswAMI, J. This writ application under Article 32 of the Consti-
tution raises the question of the constitutional tradition of the J ammu
and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 (Act of XXXVI of 1972),
•
•
r
A
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
FIDA ALI v. J & K STATE (Goswami, J.)
341
briefly called the Act, and the rules framed thereunder. The peti·
tioners are land-owners in the State of J ammu and Kashmir and their
grievance is that by the impugned Act they along with a large number
of similar land-owners have been rendered landless.
They further
allege that the amount _intended to be paid as compensation is illus0ry
and the Act is, therefore, of a confiscatc~y nature. They also illlege
that exclusion of an 'orchard' from the definition of 'land' under sec-
tion 2 ( 4) of the Act is motivated and designed in the interests of
highly placed intluential persons in the State who ciwn such orchards.
By taking an additional ground, they also aver that the Act is not saved
by the provisions of Article 3 lA of the Constitution as applicable to
the State of J ammu and Kashmir since it is not a piece of legislation
bearing on agrarian reform.
The respondent bas denied that above averments and other alle-
gations in the petition by means of an affidavit affirmed by the Special
Revenue Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is
claimed that the Act is protected by Article 31A of the Ccnstitution
and is immune from challenge on the ground of violation of ArtiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.