LexSRI RAM RAM NARAIN MEDHI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT HEPORTS
489
No. 33 of 1956 is the holder of the jagir-estate and
therefore his entire interest in the estate is liable to
resumption under the Act. In the Ajmer Regulations,
(Vol. H to I,) at pp. 564-6, these two estates have been
considered and their history is given, and they are
called jagirs. The history of jagirs in Rajasthan was
considered by this Court in Thakur Amarsinghji v.
State of Rajasthan (1), at p. 330 onwards, and the word
'jagir' was held to connote all grants which conferred
on the grantees rights in respect of land revenue. In
the case of these two jagirs also, as annexures B and
C show, land revenue was remitted and they were
granted as estates for particular purposes. They arc,
therefore, clearly estates in view of the origin of the
title of 'the holder of these estates who is called a
jagirdar and therefore the State could take them over
under s. 4 of the Act.
There is no force in any of the points raised on behalf
of the petitioners, and the petitions fail and are hereby
dismissed with one set of costs to the contesting
rer:!pondcnt.
Petitions dismisser!.
SRI RAM RAM NARAIN MEDHI
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
(and connected petition)
(S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, 'B. P. SINHA,
K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.)
Land Ref arm-Distribution of ownership and control of agri-
cultural land--Purchase by tenants-Validity of enactmcnt-Dombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (llom.
XIII of 1956), ss. 32 to 32R-C?nstitution of India, Arts. r4, r9,
:JI, 3rA, Entry r8, List II, Seventh Schedule.
The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the
Bomhay Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Amendment) Act, 1956
(1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 3ā¢>J.
62
Thakur Raghubir
Singh
v.
State of A }mer
Wanc/wo j.
November rB.
Sri R1ini R11111
Na,ain l\fedhi
v.
Th~ Slate of
Bombay
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
(Born. XIII of 1956) which. in further amending the Bombay
Tenancy an<l Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. LXVll of
1948), sought to distribute the ownership and control of agri-
cultural lands in implementation of the directive principles of
State policy laid down by Arts. 38 and 39 of the Constitutio11.
The impugned Act sought to distribute eā¢1uitably the lands
bet\vcen the landholders and the. tenants, except \Vhcre the land-
holder required the same for cultivation by himself, by way of
compulsmy purchase of all surplus lands by tenants in possession
thereof with effect from Aprill, 1957, called the 'tiller's day'.
The basic idea underlying the Act was to prevent concentration
of agricultural lands in the hands of the landholders. The Act
thus, being a legislation in respect of rights in and over land,
affected the relation between landlord and tenant and provided
for the transfer and alienation of agricultural lands.
The peti-
tioners, who were landholders as defined by s. 2(9) of the Act
contended that (r) the impugned legislation was beyond the
competence of the State Legislature, (2) that, not being protected
by Art. 31A, of the Constitution, it infringed Arts. 14, 19 and :Jr
of the Constitution am! (3) that it was a piece of colourable legis-
lation vitiated in part by excessive delegation of legislative
power to the State. On behalf of the respondent it was urged
that the impugned legislation fell within Entry 18 in List 11 of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, that it 'provided for
the extinguishment or 1nodification of rights to estates and was
as such protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution and that there
was no excessive delegation of legislative power.
Held, that it was well settled that the heads of legislation
specified in Entry 18 in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution should not be construed in a narrow and pedantic
sense but should be given a large and liberal interpretation.
There could, therefore, be no doubt that the impugned Act fell
within the purview of Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution and the plea of legislative incom-
petence must fail.
British Coal Corporation v. The King, (1935) A.C. 500; Unit<"d
Provinces v. Atiqa Begum, [1940] F.C.1{. 110 and Na11inchandra
Mafailal v. The Commissioner of Jnco1ne-tax, J)oinbay City, [1955]
I S.C.R. 829, relied on.
There could be no doubt that the Bombay Land Revepuc
Code, 1879, was the existing la\v relating to land tenures in force
in the State of Bombay within tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.