STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC versus MADHAVRAO DAMODAR PATILCHAND AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 10-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
712 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. 
v. 
MADHA VRAO DAMODAR PATILCHAND AND ORS. ETC. 
April 10, 1968 
[M. lln>AYATULLAH, C.J., 
J, c. SHAH, 
s. M. SIKRI, 
R. S. BACHAWAT, 
G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM 
. 
AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Constitution 'of Jndic, 1950, Art. JIB-Maharashtra Act 13 of 1962 
amending the Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Hold-
ings) Act (27 of 1961)-1961 Act mentioned In Ninth Schedule, but 
not amending Act-Amending Act if protected by Art, JIB-Seventeenth 
Amendment, if valid-Entry 35, of List II of Seventh Schedule-Scope 
of-Order passed under Defence of India Rules, r. 12SB-lf overrides 
s. 28 of the Maharashtra Act 27 of 1961. 
The Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 
1961, as amended by Act 13 of J962, was passed for securing the distri· 
bution of agricultural land to subserve the common good by imposing 
a ceiling on the holding of agricultural land. Section 28 of the Act is, 
intt7 alia, concerned with ensuring supply of sugarcane to factories and 
ensurin~ that the persons to whom surplus land is granted, after it has 
vested 1n the State Government, also supply it at fair price. 
The Godavari Sugar Mills was a public limited company owning two 
factories fOlr the manufacture of ·sugar and allied prequels and held large 
area• of land for the purpese of cultivation of sugarcane for its factories. 
Jn proceedings under the Act, large areas of land held by the Mills were 
declared surplus. The valid'ty of the Act was challenged on the follow-
ing grounds: (I) Article 31B does not protect the Amending Act 13 of 
1962 from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, 
because, in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution as amended by the 
Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964, only the Maharaahtra 
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, was included and 
not the Amending Act of 1962, (2) Jn spite of the detjsion of this Court 
in Go/ak Nath v. State of Puniab, (1967] 2 S.C.R. 762, the Seventeenth 
Amendment is invalid; (3) The State Legislature was not competent to 
enact the impugned Act; and ( 4) The order passed by the Sta•e Govern. 
ment under r. l 25B of the Defence of India 
Rules.· teserving certain 
areas for the factories mentioned by the schedule to the order--One of 
which was Mills-and prohibWng (a) the working of certain power 
crushers, (b) the export of sugarcane from the reserved areas except in 
accordance with a permit issued by the Collector, and (c) the purch-
of sugarcane for crushing or for manufacture of gur, gul or jaggery by 
a khandsari unit or by a crusher not belonging to a grower or body of 
growers of sugarcane except in accorda'lce with a permit issued by the 
Collector, rendered ineffective s. 28 of the impugned Act. 
HELD: (I) Even on a strict interpretation of Art. 31B the only re-
quirement laid down by the Article for protecting an enactment from 
challenge on the ground . of violation of fundamental rights is that the 
Act should be specified in the Ninth Schedule. Ordinarily, if an Act is 
referred to by its title, it means the Act with all the amendments made 
in it up to the date of reference, and there is no reason for not applying 
this rule of interpretation to the Ninth Schedule. Certain amending Acts 
are, no doubt, mentioned in the Ninth Schedule, but the only reason for 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MAHARASHTRA V. PATILCHAND 
713 
A 
inserting them expressly was that some States, out of abundant caution, 
recommended their amending Acts to be specifically inserted in the 
Ninth Schedule. (719 D-E, F, H; 720 C-D] 
B 
Observations in Shri Ram Narain v. Tlw Simla Banking and Indus-
trial Co. Ltd., [1956) S.C.R. 603, 614, explained. 
(2) The result arrived at in Go/aknath's case was that the Se...,nteenth 
Amendment was valid and this result is binding on this Bench of this 
Court. (721 CJ 
( 3) The impugned Act, apart from s. 28, is a law with respect to 
Entry 18 of List II which deals with 'Land etc.' and Entry 42 of List ID, 
which deals with 'Acquisition and Requisition of Property.' Section. 28 
itself falls within Entry 35 of List II which deals with 'Works, laru!S and 
buildill,11> vested in or in the po!ISOSSion of the State,' as that section only 
C 
deals with lands which have vested in the State. The'refore, the · State 
Legislature was competent to pass the enactment. [721 F-0; 722 A.CJ 
D 
E 
F 
( 4) If an order made under the Defence of India Rules is in conJlic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.