LexSONAPUR TEA CO., LTD. versus MUST. MAZIRUNNESSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
April 4. 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS SONAPUR TEA CO., LTD. v. MUST. MAZIRUNNESSA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) (1962) land Holding-Fixation of ceiling-Enactment, if a colourable legislation-Constitutional validity-Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, r957 (Assam r of r957), ss. 4, 5, r6, r8- Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, r886 (Regulation I of r886). ss. 3(g), 9-Constitution of India, Art. JIA(z)(b). These appeals arose out of two petitions filed in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the consti- tutional validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1957· The High Court in dismissing the petitions held that the impugned Act was protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution. The Act was a measure of agrarian reform and imposed limits on land to be held by persons in order to bring about its equitable distribution. The Act as originally passed as also its subsequent amendment received the assent of the President and this satisfied the requirement of the proviso to Art. 31A(1)(a) of the Constitution. The question, therefore, was whether the rights of the appellants which were taken away or abridged by the impugned Act were "rights" in rela- tion to an estate within the meaning of Art. 31A(2)(b) of the Constitution. Held, that the expression" 'rights', in relation to an estate" in Art. 31A(2)(b) of the Constitution is of a very wide amplitude and construed liberally, as it must be, and considered in the light of the provisions of ss. 3(g) and 9 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the existing law relating to tenures, and the relevant definitions contained in the impugned Act, there could be no doubt that the rights of the petitioners, which the impugned Act extinguished, fell within the expres- sion. Thakur Raghubir Singh v. The State of Ajmer, [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 478, Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 489 and Atma Ram v. The State of P.unjab, [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 748, referred to. A colourable legislation is one in which the Legislature transgresses the lawful limits of its legislative powers and con- ceals its real purpose under the cover of apparently legitimate and reasonable provisions and thus seeks to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. K. G. Gajapathi Narayan Deo v. The State of ,Orissa, [1954] S.C.R. 1, referred to. • • I • • • .. \ • • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 725 It was not correct to say that the impugned Act was a colourable legislation whose concealed purpose was to make profit by disposing of land in the manner provided ~y Ch. III or that by pith and substance it was a profit makmg measure or that ss. 16 and r8 of the Act were devices to that end. This is broadly contradicted by the whole object of the Act which is a measure of agrarian reform, writ large on all its pro- visions and clearly negatived bys. 4 of the Act which provides that in no case can the payment made by the tenant m gettrng the settlement exceed the amount of compensation payable by the Government in acquiring the land. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 235 and 236 of 1960. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated Janu- ary 23, 1959 of the Assam High Court at Gauhati in Civil Rules Nos. 138 and 139 of 1958. N. C. Chatterjee, Amjad Ali and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 235 of 1960). D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant (In C. A. No. 236 of 1960) . S. M. Lahiri, Advocate.General, Assam and Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 1961. April 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sonapur Tea Co., Ltd. v. Must. M azirunnessa GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-These two appeals arise out Gajendragadkar ]. of two writ petitions Nos. 138 and 139 of 1958 filed respectively by the two appellants, Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd., of 15-D Sambhunath Pandi Street, Calcutta 9, and Musst. Mazirunnessa, wife of Abdul Gafur of Vil- lage Bhoknamari, District Kamrup, in which they challenged the validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceil- ing on Land Holdings Act I of 1957 (hereafter called the Act). The said writ petitions have been dismiss- ed by the Assam High Court substantially on the ground that since the impugned Act falls within the protection of Art. 31A the challenge made by the two appellants to th"e several provisions of the Act under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and 31(
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.