RAMANLAL GULAB CHAND SHAH ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS., ETC.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 19-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMA1'iLAL GULAB CHAND SHAH ETC. 
v. 
STA TE OF GUJARAT & ORS., ETC. 
April 19, 1968 
[M. 
HIDAYATliLLAH, C.J. 0 
J. C. 
SHAH, 
R. S. BACJIAWAT, G. K. MITTER, C. A. 
AND K. 5. HEGDE, JJ.] 
S. M. S1KRI, 
VAIDIALINGAM 
Bombay Tenancy and Agric11/t11ra/ Lands Act (Hom. Act 67 of 1948) 
as a1ncnded by /Jo111bay Act 13 of 1956, s. 65-JV/lethcr co11/rrs arbitrary 
naked pOH'.er-/f u/1ra vi res-A rt. 31 A ( l) (b) oj c:o11stitu1ion--:VJanagr-
1nent for limited period-Scope of-Act a1nended 
after i11clusion 
iu 
Schedule IX--/j protected by Ari. 
J1-R 9/ Constitution. 
Seclion 65 of the Bombay Tenancy ;111d Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, 
"'·hich \Vas one of the Ao1s that had been included in the Ninth Schedule 
10 the Constitution. was amended by Bombay Act 13 of 1956. to give the 
State., the power of tuking over the mana!:,'\!n1cnt of any land on •:he ground 
that full and efficient use of the land had no1 been made for purposes of 
agriculture for t\'-'O consecutive yc-ars, for reasons not beyond .:he holder's 
control. 
Under s. 65(2). on the assumption of 
management. the pro-
visions of Chapter IV of the Act which contains ss. 44 and 61 apply to 
such land 111t1tatis 111utaudis. 
Under s. 61, the State Government may 
renounce the management when it is satisfied that it i'i no longer neCCS."iary. 
The appellants were for several ycJ.rs cul:ivating their land hy plough-
ing it. so~·ing therein good seeds of grass and cutting the. gra'is grown 
thereon and using it as fodder for their cattle. 
The concerned authority 
under the Act issued a no:ice to them to sho\' .. · cause "·by man11gemcn1 of 
the land should not be taken over by the State. The appellants showed 
cause, but the concerned authority held that ~he land was cultivable, tha1 
grains and fruits could be grown on it, that therefore full :ind r.fficient IH'.' 
<>/ the land l1,..as not rnade for t\VO conscclt.:i\·e years and directed that the 
management of the land should be taken over on behalf of 1he State. The 
appellants ch.atlenged the order in the High Court. hut their po:ition" "·ere 
-dismissed. 
Jn appeal to this Court, on the Qucstiol\ \Vhethcr 1hc ;imcndmcnt In 
s. 65 is ultra 1·ires and therefore thL' orders pas~d thereunder arc illegal, 
HELD : 1be amendment 10 s. 65 is not protccicd from challenge by 
Arts. 31-A or 31-B of the- Constitution, and since the amendment confers 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
•• 
arbitrary and unreasonable poY.'Cr on the concerned officer. it is ultra vtrl!s, 
G 
and the orders passed thereunder. 1;1king over n1;1nagcn1cnt of the Jands. 
eould not be upheld. 
( 1) Article 3 J A docs not pro1cct the ;1n1cndn1cnt to the section. 
Article 31 A( I) (a) deals with acquisitio11 of an estate or rights therein. 
and extinguisl1111ent or 11iodi(zcation of o;;uch rights, \\'here as Art. 31 A ( 1) (b) 
specifically provides for 111anagc111rnt hy the Staie. 
Therefore, cl. (a) is 
not attracted ond the mailer should be considered in the ligh1 of cl. (b). 
H 
Hut that clause c;1n he invoked only if management of any properly is 
taken ovc.r hy the State in public interesr or to secure proper n1anagemcnt. 
tor a /i111ited p:!riod. 
\1.crelv because there is a possibility of ~1 return of 
• 
• 
I 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAMANLAL v. GUJARAT (Hidayamllah, C.J.) 
43 
lhc land to the origina] O\vncr. j,: coulJ not be said that the management 
\Vas for a lln1itcd Period. 
Sccfrvn 61 itself, which provides for termina-
tion of manaocmcnt, does not set any time limit fo·r the management. 
::Odoreovcr, ,~hO""ugh the provisions of Chapter IV are made applicable to 
lands whose n1anagcment is tJken over, so far as lands of non-landholders 
are concerned, it is under the rules that management is carried on. Under 
r. 35, the manager 1nakes a report after about a year to enable the Gov-
ernment to decide \.vhei!her .it is necessary to continue managen1ent or 
release. the land. 
The managcn1ent may be continued for periods of 5 
years at a time on the strength of periodic reports, but, if management is 
to continue beyond l 0 years, a forn1al inquiry is necessary before Gov-
ernmen~ decides to continue the management. 
Thus, assun1ing that the 
rules read with s. 61 could indicate a limited period of management the 
rules, in fact, <lo not indicate such a time limit. 
Without a 1imit of time 
the man.agemeni! would be. an excuse for deprivation of property 'vitbout 
compensation. 
Therefore the 
protection of 
Art. 
31A(l)(b) is 
not 
available. [53F-54G; 55B, D

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