LexGULABHAI VALLABHBHAI DESAI ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GULABHAI VALLABHBHAI DFSAI ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
September 27, 1966
(K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAll, S. M. SJKRI,
V. RAMASWA.\11 AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.]
Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages)
Regula/ion (7 o/
1962) and Constitution of India, 1950, Art. JI-A-Regulation, if constl-
t•tlonally valid.
A
B
In 1962, after the annexation
of the territories belonging to India
from Portuguese bands, the President of India promulgated the Daman c
(Abolition of Pro1nictorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962, for the aboli-
tion of the propnetorshi{' of villages in Daman district.
The five peti-
tioners, who were propnetors of lands in five villages, challenged
the
validity of the Regulation under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution,
while the Union of India contended that the Regulation was· protected by
Art. 31-A.
HELD : With respect to those rnions of the lands of the petitioners
D
which were devoted to agricultura
or horticultural purposes, the pro-
erietorship ceases and the Regulation operates upon them, because they
tall within the definition of "estate" under Art. 31-A(2)(a)(iii). Those
portions vest in the Government subject to payment
of compensation
under the Regulation.
As regards the portions which are hilly land, salt
pans, salt lands, quarries. or lands within a municipal area, they do not
vest in the Government under the Regulation and Art. 3 l-A(2) does not
lend its protection to their
expropriation. Compensation for them,
if
E
acquired .. would have to be assessed and given on considerations other
than those in the Regulation. [605 E; 616 A-C, F-0; 6!7 E]
The Regulation deals
with agrarian
reform.
Its
general
scheme
follows that of the other Reform Acts abolishing intermediaries in India.
But, in order that protection of Art. 31-A may be available to the Regula-
tion the interest abolished by the Regulation must come wilhin the com-
pendious definition of "estate" in Art. 31-A(2) of the Constitution, insert-
ed by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)
Act.
As the word
"estate" as such has not been used in any of the Portuguese laws previously
in force in the district of Dam:ill, the lands and the interests in them, abc>-
lished by the Regulation. cannot be referred to as "estates". They cannot
also be treated as the equivalent of "estates" under the Indian Revenue
Law, because, under the Indian
Law to be an "estate" there must be
land which pays land revenue and which is held in
accordance with a
law relating to land tenures.
But as all lands in the district belonged to
the Crown, Portuguese law contemplated only three kinds of dealing with
land: (a) grant of a permanent lease, (b) grant of a period lease, and
( c) sale; but there was no tenure nor payment of land revenue. No con·
dition on which- the lands were held in Daman district could properly be
said to be a condition denoting tenure.
The payment to the Government
was either rent or a percentage of the presumable
income from land.
The holders were paymg a kind of income.tax which resembled agricul-
tural income-tax under the Indian Law.
Even if it be regarded as land
revenue, there was no Jaw of land tenures,
because, all the property,
urban or agriculturaL was held alike on lease or by persons who were
owners by purchase. [604 F-0; 607 E-0; 610 H; 612 A-El
F
G
H
)'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
G. v. DESAI v. UNION (Hidayatui'lah, !.)
603
As regards the three entities which are included in the definition of
"estate" in Art. 31·A(2)(a), clause (ii) is .µot applicable to. the lands
because, there was no ryotwari settlement or tenure in Daman district.
Clause (i) which mentions "any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar
grant" could apply to one village which was granted for the upkeep of
one Arab horse, but there was no evidence that the village was held on
concessional terms.
Clause (iii),. which includes "any I.and held or let
for purpose of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including
waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other
structures, occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers
and
village artisans", however, applies to the ·bulk of the land in all the
'illages. But certain parts in the villages consist of Sll!t pans, gravel pits,
quarries and hills, and the property rights of the petitioners in such parts
of lands were also extinguished by s. 3 of the Regulation, because, the
definitiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.