LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus MAN SINGH SURAT SINGH PADVI & ORS,
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
856
STATE OF MAHARASIDRA & ORS.
v.
MAN SINGH SURAT SINGH PADVI & ORS,
February 14, 1978
[M. H. BEG, C. J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER,
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. N. SHINGHAL, JASWANT S1NGH
AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.]
West Khandesh Mehwassl
Estate (Proprietary
Rights
Abolition
etc.)
ReRulation, 1951 included in the Ninth ScheduTe as Item 155-Constitutional.'
validity is no longer open on the ~round of violation of Art 19'(1)(f), whe11
once it is included in the protective umbrella of the 1\linth Schedule.
There were six estates of Tribal Chiefs called LMehwassi Estates'· in West
Khandesh district. The Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 was made appli.-
cable to the Mehwassi Estates by s. 3 of_ the
West
Khandesh
Mehwas'H
Estates Regulation, 1949, and Section 4 of this Regulation also made appll-
cable all other Acts .passed by the Central or the State Legislatures which
were in force in other parts of West Khandesh District. This included, intJ?r
alia, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948·, which was
amended from time to time. Respondent No. I the owner of one suc:h
Estate, namely, Kathi Estate became an occupant of the agricultural lands
forming part of the Estates as a result ; of the application of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code and the persollSI who were cultivating these lands under
him became his tenants, and their relationship was governed by the Tenancy'
Act, 1948.
By virtue of ss. 32. to 32R of the Tenancy Act as amended by
Bombay Act 13 of 1956 and the order dated 31st March, 1957, the tenant&
of the 1st respondent became the "deemed purchasers" of the' lands held by
them on 1st April, 1957 and the 1st respondent ceased to be the owner and
became entitled . to receive from his. permanent ttnants a purchase price eq11al
to six times the rent of the lands and from his ordinary tenants, a purchase
price betWeen twenty to eighty times the assessment. By reason of a la.ter
amendment to the Tenancy Act, adding s.880, with retrospective effect from
1st August, 1956 the old relationship was restored so that the tenants did
not become deemed purchasers" of the lands and the first respondent did pot
cease to be the owner of such lands.
As a result of ~the passing of Vfest
Khandesh Mehwassi Estate (Proprietary Rights Abolition etc.) Regula·don
1961 and a Notification of the Governor of Bombay dt. 24th February, J.'162,
conferrinJ~ occupancy rights of inferior holders on the tenants and abolishing
the proprietary rights of the holder of the Mehwassi Estates, the tenant-5 of
the I st respondent became the occupant& of the land held by them and the• !st
,respondent was deprived of all his right& and he ceased to be entitled
to
receive anything from his inferior holders, the purchase price receivable~ by
him from his permanent tenants was reduced from six times the rent ,to 1hree
times the assessment and from his other tenants, he became entitled to re•::elve
only purchase price at six times the assessment instead of twenty to eighty
times the assessment.
The 1st respondent chall~nged the constitutional validity of these legisla:~
tive measures and the High Court struck them down on the ground that they
violated the fundamental right of the !st respondent under Art. 19(1 )(f)
and they were not protected by ·Art. 3 lA of the Constitution. During the
pendency of 'the said appeal !>Y certificate, the 1961 Regulation was included
in the Ninth Schedule. as Item No. 155.
Allowing the appeal by certificate the Court
HEW : The effect of the inclusion in the Ninth Schedule was that the
West Khandesh Mehwassi Estate (Proprietary Rights Abolition etc.) Regula-
>---
L
. _.{
MAHARASHTRA v. MAN SINGH (Bhagwati, J.)
857
•
ition, 1961 was immunised from challenge on the ground that it was inconsis-
A
ient with or took away or abridged a.ny of the rights conferred by Part JII
of the Constitution and hence its constitutional validity could no longer be
assailed on the ground that it violated Art. 19(1)(f). Article 3!B and the
Ninth Schedule cured the defect, if any, in the West Khandesh Mehwassi
Estate (Proprietary Rights Abolition etc.) Regulation Act 1961 as regards
any unconstitutionality alleged on the ground of infringement of fundamental
rights and by the expre·ss words of Art. 31B, such curing of the defect took
'Place with retrospective operation from the date on which this regulation was
enacted by the Governor. This ReExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.