SRIRAM NARAYAN MEDHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 04-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRIRAM NARAYAN MEDW 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
May 4, 1971. 
881 
A 
(S. M. S11CRJ, C. J., G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
B 
A. N. RAY AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.) 
Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Amendment) A1ct, 1964 (Maha-
rQ.Shtra Act 31 of 1965)-Validity of amendments challenged under Arts. 
19 and 31 of the Constitution-Act whether protected from ·such challenge 
by Art. 31A. 
The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was passed in 
furtherance of the State's policy of social welfare and to give effect to 
agrarian reform. By the Constitution First Amendment Act 1951 the said 
A.ct was included in the NiJt.th Schedule and came within the purview of 
Art. 318 of the Constitution. In 1956 the State Legislature in crder lo 
implement the Directive Principles of State Policy passed the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (.<\mendment) Act which came into force 
on 1st August 1956. The main effect of the amendments made by the 
1956 Act was that on 1st April 1957 every tenant was subject to other 
provisions deemed to have purchased from his landlord free of all encum-
brances, the land held by him as a tenant. "fhe erstwhile landlord remain-
ed entitled only to recover the price fixed under the provisions of the 
Amendment Act in the manner provided therein i.e. by a tribunal. The 
Amendment Act was challenged by a petition under Art. 32 but this Court 
held that it was protect.:d by Art. 31A. Further changes in the Act were 
made by the impugned Act, namely, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultu .. 
ral Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964. 
In a petition under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution it was contended that these changes had affected the petitioner's 
right to property in that he had neither the right to recover the price of 
tQe land deemed to be purchased by the tenant nor any hope of recovering 
it through the procedure prescribed by the impugned Act within a reason-
able time. It was urged that there was no time fixed for the tribunal to 
determine that it had failed in the efforts to recover the amount under the 
Reveuue Recovery Act so that the tenant purchaser could be evicted. The 
provisions of the Act were also attacked as unreasonable. The question 
that fell for consideration was whether the impugned Act was pr<Jtected 
by Art. 31A. 
HELD: Once it has been held that Art 31A applies to an Act the 
petitioner cannot complain that his rights under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of 
the Constitution have been infringed. The protection is available r.ot only 
to Acts which come within its terms but also to Acts amending such Acts 
to include new items of property or which change some detail of the scheme 
of the Act provided firstly that the change is not such as would take it 
out of Art. 31A or by itself is not such as would not be protected by it 
and secondly that the assent of the President has been given to the amend-
ing statute. So long as the amendment also relates to a scheme of agra-
rian reform providing for the acquisition of any estate or of any right 
thereunder or for extjnguishment or modification of such right the mere 
transfer of the tenure from one person to another or the payment of the 
price in instalment or even the postponement of payment by a further 
·period cannot be challenged under Arts. 14, 19 and 31. [666H] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
SUPRBME COURT REPORTS 
[J97J) SUPP. S.C.R. 
In the present case the impugned legislation .bad merely amended th<: 
provision which related to -the recovery of the amounts from the tenant 
who had become purchaser and the postponement of the time of ineffective~ 
ness of sale till the tribunal has tried and failed to recover the amount 
from the tenant purchaser. This had not in any way affected the main 
purpose of the Act or the object which it seeks. to achieve nor did the 
amendments effected thereby take the provision out of 4he protection given 
to it under Art. 3IA of the Constitution. 
[66711-C] 
The petition must accordingly be dismissed. 
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi· v. State of Bombay, (19591 1 
Supp. S.C.R. 489, referred to and held inapplicable. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: WRIT PETITION No. 254 of 1968. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for tllc 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
V. M. Tarkunde, V. M. Limaye and S. S. Shukla for the 
petitioners. 
P 
V. S. Desai, M. C. Bhandare and S. 
P. Nayar, for the res-
E 
F 
G 
H 
pondent. 
The Judgment of tile Court was delivered by 
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.-The petitioner challenge

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