SHRI MAHADEO PAIKAJI KOLHE YAVATMAL versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 04-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
733 
SHRI MAHADEO P AIKAJI KOLHE 
YAVATMAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Agricultural Land--Amendment of law relating to tenancies-
Constitutional validity of enactment-Bombay Tenancy and Agri-
cultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) 
Act, r958 
(Bom. 99 of r958). 
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of 
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region 
and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, which extended the provisions of 
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) 
Act, 1956, to Vidarbha and Kutch. That Act was declared valid 
by this Court in Sri Ram R'!1m Narain Medhi v. The Stale of Bom-
bay, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 489, and one of the reasons for doing 
so was that the lands covered by that Act fell within the defini-
tion of the word 'estate' contained in the Bombay Land Revenue 
Code, 1879. The lands in question in the present petitions were 
situated in .:\rnraoti and Ycotmal and the existing law relating 
to land tenures.in force in tho! area was the Madhya Pradesh 
Land Revenue Code, 1954· 
This Code did not employ the word 
.. 
'estate' and it was contended by the petitioners that the im-
pugned Act was not within the protection of Art. 31A of the 
Constitution. 
IIeld, that the contention must fail. 
Although the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954. 
did not employ the word 'estate', the relevant clelmition con-
tained in ss. 2(17) and 2(18) of impugned Act and ss. 2(7), 2(20) 
of the Code read with ss. 145 and 146 thereof leaves no manner 
J 
ol doubt that the lands in the possession of the petitioners were 
tenures and in substance an estate. 
Since the petitioners held the lands under the State and 
paid land revenue for then1, the lands fell within the class of 
local equivalents of the word 'estate' as contemplated by Art. 
3rA(2)(a) of the Constitution. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
·writ Petitions Nos. 93 
and 125 of 1959. 
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
V. M. Lim.aye, E. Udayarathnam and S.S. Shukla, 
fo1 the petitioners. 
r96r 
April 4. 
1961 
Shri M ahadeo 
Paikaji K olhe 
Yavatmal 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
Interveners. 
1961. 
April 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gajendragadkar J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. -These two writ petitions 
have been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and 
they seek to challenge the validity of the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 99 of 1958 (here-
after called the Act). The impugned Act in substance 
is intended to extend to Vidarbha region and Cutch 
area which had then become a part of the Greater Bi-
Lingual State of Bombay the provisions of the Bom-
bay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) 
Act, 1956 (Act XIII of 1956). The preamble to the 
impugned Act shows that it was intended to amend 
the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and 
sites used for allied purposes in the two areas of the 
State of Bombay and to make certain other provisions 
in regard to those lands. In extending the provisions 
of the earlier Bombay Act XIII of 1956 to the two 
areas the legislature has conformed to the pattern set 
up by the said earlier Act. 
The policy underlying 
the Act and the object intended to be achieved by it 
are the same and the method adopted in achieving 
that object is also the same. The validity of the 
earlier Bombay Act (XIII of 1956) was challenged 
before this Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. 
The State of Bombay (1) but the challenge failed and 
the Act was held to be constitutional. One of the 
points which arose for decision in that case was whe-
ther the impugned Act was protected by Art. 31A(2)(a) 
of the Constitution, and the answer to that ques-
tion depended upon the determination of another issue 
which was whether the lands to which the said Act 
applied were an "estate" as required by Art. 31A(2)(a). 
In dealing with that question this Court held that the 
word "estate" as defined by s. 2(5) of the Bombay 
Land Revenue Code, 1879, clearly applied to the lands 
(x) (1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 489. 
I 
l 
• 
i .. 
.. 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
735 
covered by the Act and so Art. 31A(

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