SRI SRI KALIMATA THAKURANI & SRI SRI RAGHUNATH JEW & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 950 · Decided: 20-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

950 
A 
SRI SRI KALIMATA THAJ(URANI & SRI SRI RAGHUNATH 
B 
c 
JEW & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
February 20, 1981 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
West Bengal Land Refornzs Act, 1955, S. 2(8) Proviso and Explanation, S. 
20B(3), (4) and (5); West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 & 
U'e.H Bengal Land Reforms (Ame11dn11ent) Ac1, 1977-Constitutional validity of. ~
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 19(l)(e), (g) and Nimh Schedule 
Entry Nos. 60 and 81-Violation of Fundamental Rights-Complaint of-Court . 
to determine whether restrictions contain quality of reasonableness. 
The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 permitted a tenant (land-holder} 
to get the land cultivated by a bargadar, on the basis that the bargadar would 
D 
share the produce, and the Act contained provisions for enforcement of the right 
of the tenant to get such share. Section 17 permitted the tenant to terminate the 
cultivation of the land by a bargadar and resume possession for his own cultiva-
tion on certain contingencies, one of them being that he requires it bona fide for 
personal cultivation. 
The West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 provided for the 
E 
reduction in tho ceiling area of the tenant, and incorporated sub-sections (3), (4) 
and (5) of section 20B of the 1955 Act, which provided that where the bargadar 
had voluntarily surrendered or abandoned the cultiYation of the land, the facility 
of cultivating the land personally by the tenant should be denied to him. 
The West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1977 inserted a Provis<> 
and an Explanation to clause (8) of section 2 of the 1955 Act, which provided 
P 
that a person or member of his family should reside in the greater part of the 
G 
H 
year in the locality where the land is situated and the principal source of his in-
\ 
come is derived from the land and that 'family' shall have the same meaning as •-
in clause (c) of section 14. 
The petitioners in their writ petitions to this Cou1t assailed : ( 1) The West 
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as also amendments made to the said Act uptO' 
1977, contending that the 1955 Act \Vas constitutionally invalid and that the 
Amendment Act of 1972 was in the nature of a Ceiling Act prescribing a parti-
cular ceiling for the area of the land which should be retained by the tenant and 
that sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of s. 20B of the 1955 Act were violative 
of Article 14 of the Constitution, 
as 
being discriminatory 
and 
arbitrary 
Once the tenant was given the right of personal cultivation and was permitted to 
get the land cultivated by a bargadar on the basis. that the bargadar would share 
the produce, there was no warrant for not allowing the tenant to resume the land 
where a bargadar had voluntarily surrendered or abandoned the land and to deny 
the right of cultivating the land personally by the tenant, and (2) the Provis<> 
KALIMATA THAKURANI v. UNION 
951 
and the Explanation to section 2 of the 1955 Act deprive the petitioners of their 
A 
rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (e) and (g) of the Constitution in as much 
as it prevents them from either going to or residing in any other place in India 
and places a serious curb on their right to carry on an occupation other than 
agriculture. 
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the rigour of sub-sections 
(3) and (4) can be softened if clause (d) of section 17 is read down and inter-
B 
preted in a way as to permit a tenant to resume the land under clause (d) of 
section 17 if the bargadar voluntarily surrenders or abandons the land. 
Dis.missing the writ petitions : 
HELD: l(i). The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 
1955 
including 
the 
Amendment Act of 1972 and the proviso introduced by the Amendment Act of 
C 
1977 are constitutionally valid. [961 G] 
In the· instant case the 1955 Act and the Amendment Act of 1972 having been 
added to the Ninth Schedule as Entry Nos. 60 and 81 prior to April 24, 1973, 
are immune fron1 challenge as being violative of Part III of the Constitution. 
[954 Al 
Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 271, referred to. 
0 
(ii) Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the 1955 
Act are the only grounds on which a tenant can get the land back for his per~ 
sonal cultivation. 
The -'Piltingency where the bargadar voluntarily surrenders 
or abandons the land is neither mentioned, nor directly or indireCtly contemplated 
by them. 
The contentio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.