LexMADHUSDAN SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,• '· ·~ >. '. ' ._,\, j 849 MADHUSDAN SING A & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OR.S. • November 22, 1983 • [S. MuRTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M.P:Tf:!AKKAR~ JJ.) . · west Bengal Land 'Reforms Act, 19~5 as amended _by A1nendment Acts of 1972 and 1977-Sections 14M, !7(c) 17(6) and 2/B of constitutional validit,1' of. The petitioners, in this round of'challenge assailed _the validity ofSCction J4M, 17(c), l7(1i) and 21 B of the West Bengal Landi Reforms Act, calllng"to :their aid certain obscfvations made by this Court in Sri Sri Kalin1ata Thak1irani . and Sri Sri Raglrunath Jain & Ors etc v. Union Of India·& Ors..- [1981) 2 S.C.R. 950 and the· decisions ill Mintrrva Mills· Ltd. v. Union-of india & Or_s. [1981] . 1 S.C.R. 206 and. Haman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, (1981] 2 S.C.R. I. The petitioners raised tJ:ie following p_oints : (i} that the total ceiling area aIJowed to b_e.retained by the 1953 Act -in respect of agricultural land in klias possession_ of the· Raiyats Was drastically reduced; (ii) that ~Ithongh ihe status of raiyats. was co~ferrcd ofl the erstwhile Jahdlords which was heritable and transferable,' th~ ins.titution of bargards was. introduced in Order to enable the_raJyats to cultivate their lands on a 50:50 basis" and, . . (iii) that while the Amendment Act of 1972 had given a ·right to 'the raiyats ·to resume the lands given to the . baraardars for th~ir p:rsonal ·cultivation; the subsequerit amendments.took awaY this right arid made the . right of the bargardar both' heritable and transferable causing sericius d'etfiment and prejudice to the· raiyats." · · · ' · Dismissing the petitions, the Court. · . HELD : 1 1 The impugne_d amend1nents were· manifeStly and p~intedly · 1nade for.1he ptlrpose of_gfvin~ effect to and securing the objects.of Article 39(b) because:these A'Cts clearJy intended to ,distribute the' niaterial resources of the Community viz, the agricultural land's to a large number oftillerS"Ofthe soil .iri ·order to Serye the common good of the afores~id peOple. The Amendments fall .. within tfie letter and spirit of Artide 39(b) of the -C-onstitution. The ·Acts· have not touched the non-agricultural home stead land.S, or ·buildirigs of ·ti1e Land owriers standing thereon but has taken over Qnly a ri1ajor portion of the asdcultura1 l~nds,-Ieaviri~ .with the lan4Iords a portion prescribed within the;. c H D E F G H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] l S,C;R, ceiling.limit-and distribU;ted the excess to the ti.liefs of the soil which alone constitute their main ·source of sustenance and livelihood. The claim of the raiyats-(erstwhile landlords) that the Acts amount to c<?nfiscatioO is absolutely untenable and amoun.ts only t.o shedding crocodile tears and an anathema or .taboo. [860 H; 861 A-B; 860 Gj • 1.2 The erro~ regarding the addition of Amrnding Acts as items.of ·Entry in the Ninth Schedule was inadvertantly crept in the deci~ion of Sri Sri Kali111ata Tha:kuriJni's case. Ev!!n if the Acts were not in.eluded in th~ Ninth Schedule •. their constitutional validity could not be questioned because the provisions are otherwiS~ reasonable and give full .effect to. the progmatic and socialistic approach as contained in Article 39(b) of the Con~tituiion. ·Sri Sri Kciiimata Thakurani and Srf Sri Raghunath few and Ors v. Union-of India & Ors. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 950; Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India and Ors (198lj 1 S.C.R. 206; Wa•nan Rao & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, [1981] 2 S.C.R;' 1: Sanjee11 _Coke ManufacturiTJg Co. v. Mfs. Bharat Cokihg 1 Coal Ltd. and Anr:, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147; Sasanka·Sekhar Malty & Ors. Union of India & Ors, [1980] 4S.C.C. 716, State of Tamil Nadu etc v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors . . CA Nos 957-966 (N) of 1973 decided on 31'.10-83 followed.· 1.3 The Amendment Acts cannot be challeng~d as violative of thC · doctrine of nexus or involving no process .of distributions. State of Karna/aka v. Rangnatha Reddy .& Anr. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 641, Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. [1981] 2.S.C.R. 950, $anjeeva Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Mfs. Bhara_t Coking Coal Ltd and Anr. [1983] 1 S.C.R: 147~ and StateofTamiltul(fu etc. v. L. ;Jbukavur Bai &-Ors. C.A. No. 957-966 (N) "of 1973 decided on 31-10·1983 followed, · • 1.4 ·The provisions of ~he Amendment "by which the raiyat is enjoined tO reside.in the village itseJf for a large part of the year c_annot be said to be Cither harsh or arbitrary . .
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.