LexKANWAR LAL versus IIND ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE, NAINITAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
KANWARLAL
v.
!IND ADDITIONAL DISTI. JUDGE, NAINITAL AND ORS.
APRIL 20, 1995
B
[P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 31A, 246(3) and 372 Pre-Constitu-
tional central statute-Amendment of-State Legislature-Competent-Ac-
quisition of Land--Under personal cultivation-Within ceiling limit-Entitled
C to compensation-Only modification or restriction of rights in such land-Not
a case of acquisition-Not entitled to compensation.
U.P. Government Estates 1hekedari Abolition (Re-enactment and
Validation) Act, 1970.
D
Taking over land-Notifications issued-Act amended-Whether fresh
notifications required-Held: not necessary.
In 1920s, Government of India offered to extend many concessions
to those who agreed to develop the undeveloped lands. The predecessor of
E the appellant accepted the offer and agreed to develop land in District
Nainital. By lease deed Dated 25th August, 1920 Government of India
granted lease of 4805 acres of land to Lala Kushi Ram for development
under the Crown Grants Act (later renamed as Government Grants Act,
1895) for a period extending upto 31st March, 2013.
F
The State of U.P. passed Government Estates Thekedari Abolition
Act, 1958 (for short "Principal Act") and notifications were issued under
the said Act vesting all leased lands in the State. The High Court quashed
these notifications as being ultra vires the Constitution. The U.P. Govern·
ment Estates Thekedari Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act,
1970 (for short "the Validation Act") was passed whereby the notifications
G issued under the Principal Act were revived under the amended Principal
Act the State issued notifications applying the provisions of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ("the Z.A. Act") to the
villages in question. The appellant the successor to the original lessee
challenged these notifications before the High Court, but was not success·
H ful. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the appellant preferred the
622
'
'
<-
KANWAR !-AI, v. IIND ADDL. DISTI. JUDGE
623
present appeal.
A
On behal( of the appellant it was contended that the State cannot
amend the Government Grants Act which is a pre-constitutional central
statute; that in the absence of a fresh notification issued under the
amended Principal Act, his leasehold rights cannot be deemed to have been
terminated; that the Validation Act is violative of the second proviso to B
Article 31A(l) of the Constitution, hence he is entitled to full compensa-
tion; and that in any case he has become Government lessee vide Sec. 133A
of the Z.A. Act and hence the land would stand excluded from the
provisions of the Principal Act.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. In view of the provisions both of clauses (1) and (3)(b) of
Articles 372 and 246(3) read with Entry 18 of List II of the Constitution,
the State Legislature was competent to amend the Government Grants Act,
c
1895. (628-B, CJ
D
2.l. Sec. 6 of the U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition
(Re-enactment and :validation) Act, 1970 ('Validation Act") validated any-
thing done or purported to have been done and any action taken or
purported to have been taken under the provisions of the U.P. Government
Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 ('Principal Act"). (628-F)
E
2.2. In view of the said express validating provision, the notifications
which were issued under the Principal Act in terms revived with the revival
of the Principal Act and hence the action taken under the said notifications
also stood validated. It was not necessary to reissue the notifications after F
the enactment of the Validation Act as otherwise it would render the
provisions of Sec. 6 of the Validation Act otiose. (629-B, C]
Mahendra Lal Jaini v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1963)
Supp. 1 SCR 9121, held inapplicable.
3.1. The second proviso to Article 31A (1) of the Constitution
prohibits acquisition by the State of any portion of the land under personal
cultivation which portion is within the ceiling limit, without payment of
market value as commensation. [ 630-F)
G
3.2. By virtue of the Principal Act as amended, what is conferred H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995] 3 S.C.R.
A permanently on the erstwhile lessees under the Grants Act is the
hereditary tenancy. The Principal Act as amended by Itself does not
restrict the right of the hereditary tenant to transfer the land. The restric-
tion onExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.