PREM NATH RAINA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 04-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
536 
PREM NATH RAINA AND OTHERS . 
'· 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS 
August 4, 1983 
(Y. V. CllANDRACHUD, C. J., R. S. PATHAK AND 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.) 
Jammu and Kashmir Agrarion ~forms Act, 17 of 1976-a measure of 
agrarian reform-Saved by Article 31Afrom challenge under Artic/es 14, 19 and 
31 of the Constitution. 
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Jammu and 
Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 17 of 1976 on the ground that the Act 
violated Articles 14. 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The petitioners contended 
that as the Act contained certain provisions which were not co-related to 
agrarian welfare, the Act could not be said to be a meas~ of agra_rian reform 
Md therefore not saved by Article 31A of the Constitution. 
Dismissina the petitions, 
HELD: The Act is a measure of agrarian reform and is •avod by Art. 
31A from the challenge under Arts. 14, 19 or 3f of tho Constitution. [541 DJ 
The question as to whether any particular Act is a measure of agrarian 
refor111 has to be decided by looking at the dominant purpose of that Act. In 
the instant case the dominant purpose of the statute· is to bring about a just 
and equitable redistribution of lands, which is achieved by making the tiller 
of the soil the owner of the Jand which he cultivates and by imposing a ceiling 
on the extent of the land which any person, whether landlord or tenallt, can 
hold. The matters which are dealt with by the Act are essential steps in any 
well conceived scheme of agrarian reform. The decision in Kochuni was treated 
. in Ran}lt Singh as a special case which cannot apply to cases where the general 
scheme of legislation is definitely agrarian reform and under its provisions, 
something ancillary thereto in the interests of rural economy has to be- under-
taken to give full effect to those reforms. [541 A-D, 541 DJ 
• 
' 
--·---
Ranjit Singh v. State of PuJiiah, (1965J I 3.C.R. 82 and Kavalappara 
Kottarathil Kochunl & Q,,, v. State of Madras & Ors., [l960J 3 S.C.R. 887, 
~ 
referred to. 
· 
H 
The circumstance that the Act is maQc applicable to agricultural lands 
situated within the limits of local authorities will not affect its character as a 
measure of agrarian reform. If any land situated in a developed area is used 
predominantlr for the purpose of a(ll'icult~ro, it is 011en tq the legislature tq 
/ 
HtEM NATII v. i. AND K. (Chanjrachud; C.J.) 
S31 
include that land in a scheme of agrarian feform so as to make the tiller of 
that land its owner, The hyp9thetical possibility that after becoming statutory 
owners of agricultural lands situated in developed areas on payment of a paltry 
price, the tillers will part with t~ose lands at a high price which lands in 
developed areas like urban hreas fetch, cannot affect the basic position that 
the Act is conceived in the larger interest of agrarian. reform. -The payment of 
a larger compensation to land~holders under a land reform law than what 
would be payable under an Act like the Urban Ceiling Act does not lead to 
the conclusion that the former is not a measure of agrarian reform. [543 A~F] 
Section 7(2)(b) of the Act creates an anomalous situation, especially in 
the context .of the definition of 'personal cultivation' in section 2(12) of the 
Act. If it is permissible to cultivate a land through another person as specified 
in clauses (b) to (g) of section 2(12), there is no reason why residence in tho 
village where the land is situated or in an adjoining village should be compul~ 
sory for all persons, even for minors, widows, insane persons and persons in 
detention. The exception made by the legislature in favour of the members of 
defence forces ought to be extended to these other persons also. The exclusion 
of a constitutional challenge under Articles, 14, 19 and 31 which is provided 
for by Article 31A does not justify in equity the irrational violation of these 
articles. (543 G, 544 B-D) 
Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, [1981) 2 S.C.R. I, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 4195 and 4445 of 
1978, 8831. 8942 of 1981, 342-717, 803-804, 1005-1242, 6501-6746, 
2860-3049, 3169-71, 3413-63, 7133-35 of 1982. 
V.M. Turkunde and Naunit Lal for the petitioners in W.P. 
Nos. 4196/82, 6501-6746, 2860-3049, 342-717/82, and 8831/81. 
S.S. Java/i, B.P .. Singh and Ranlit 'KU11Jar for the petitioners 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
in.W.P. Nos. 4445/78, 8942, 1005-1242, 3413-3463 and 7133-35/82. 
F 
Sanjay Ka

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.