# 340 FIDA ALI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 340
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-04-30
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew, A. Alagiriswami, P. K. Goswami, R. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/340-fida-ali-and-others-v-state-of-jammu-and-kashmir-6335
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Jamtnu and Kasl1111ir Agrarian Rejornu Act, 1972-Whether tile Act is proJccted by Art. 3 lA of the Constitution..
A
B
In this \Vrit petition, the constitutional valid{ty of the Jammu and Kashmir
Agrarian Reforms Act. 1972 and the rules framed thereunder has been chal-
'lenged. The short question for determination is whether the Act is protected
under Art. 31A of the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jarnmu and
Kashmir, providing for a scheme of agrarian reforms.
c
According to the petitioners, who are landowners in the State of Jam mu and
Kashmir, they have been rendered landless by the Act.
They further allege that
the proposed compensation is illusory and the exclusion of an "orchard" from
the definition of land is motivated and that the Act is not a piece of legislation
bearing on agrarian reform and therefore. it is not protected by Art. 3 lA of the
.Constitution.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD :-(1) From the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the Act contains
a programme of agrarian reforms in taking stock of the land in the State which
is not in personal cultivation and which though
1in pcrsona:l cultivation is in excess
.of the ceiling area of 12~- acres. The main focus of the Act i~ to see that the
tillers, who form the backbone of the agricultural economy, are provided with
land for the purpose of personal cultivation subject to the ceiling provision.
[345H·346B]
The Act makes effective provisions for creating a granary of land at the
.disposal of the State for equitable distribution subject to the limit, amongst
the tillers of the soil and even the owners who would make 'person::i.l cultivation' of the same within the n1eaning of the Act.
[346B-C]
(2) In the present case. there is no discrimination in favour of the orchard-
-Owners because in fixing the ceiling areas_ land and orchards are buth included
D
E
and the definitions of 'land' and 'orchard' under the Act clearly permit of
some special treatment to orchards in view of schen1e of the entire Act.
F
Further. there is reason for excluding 'orchards' which is a compact area
having fruit trees, grown thereon in such number that they preclude it from
'being used for any other agricultural purpose. Further, orchards have special significance in the State. Therefore. there is no discrimination; and since
the Act has been passed with the definite object of agrarian reforms, it C<\nnot
be successfully chalJenged on the J?;round of violation of Art. 14; 19 and Art. 31
-Of the Constituti0n.
[346D-347C]
O><IGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1485 o~ 1973.
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution c~ India.
M. C. Chitale, Naunit Lal and Lalita Kohli, for the petitioners.
M. K Ramamurthy and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents.
G

## Text

.340
FIDA ALI AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
April 30, 1974
{A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI
AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.j
Jamtnu and Kasl1111ir Agrarian Rejornu Act, 1972-Whether tile Act is proJccted by Art. 3 lA of the Constitution..
A
B
In this \Vrit petition, the constitutional valid{ty of the Jammu and Kashmir
Agrarian Reforms Act. 1972 and the rules framed thereunder has been chal-
'lenged. The short question for determination is whether the Act is protected
under Art. 31A of the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jarnmu and
Kashmir, providing for a scheme of agrarian reforms.
c
According to the petitioners, who are landowners in the State of Jam mu and
Kashmir, they have been rendered landless by the Act.
They further allege that
the proposed compensation is illusory and the exclusion of an "orchard" from
the definition of land is motivated and that the Act is not a piece of legislation
bearing on agrarian reform and therefore. it is not protected by Art. 3 lA of the
.Constitution.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD :-(1) From the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the Act contains
a programme of agrarian reforms in taking stock of the land in the State which
is not in personal cultivation and which though
1in pcrsona:l cultivation is in excess
.of the ceiling area of 12~- acres. The main focus of the Act i~ to see that the
tillers, who form the backbone of the agricultural economy, are provided with
land for the purpose of personal cultivation subject to the ceiling provision.
[345H·346B]
The Act makes effective provisions for creating a granary of land at the
.disposal of the State for equitable distribution subject to the limit, amongst
the tillers of the soil and even the owners who would make 'person::i.l cultivation' of the same within the n1eaning of the Act.
[346B-C]
(2) In the present case. there is no discrimination in favour of the orchard-
-Owners because in fixing the ceiling areas_ land and orchards are buth included
D
E
and the definitions of 'land' and 'orchard' under the Act clearly permit of
some special treatment to orchards in view of schen1e of the entire Act.
F
Further. there is reason for excluding 'orchards' which is a compact area
having fruit trees, grown thereon in such number that they preclude it from
'being used for any other agricultural purpose. Further, orchards have special significance in the State. Therefore. there is no discrimination; and since
the Act has been passed with the definite object of agrarian reforms, it C<\nnot
be successfully chalJenged on the J?;round of violation of Art. 14; 19 and Art. 31
-Of the Constituti0n.
[346D-347C]
O><IGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1485 o~ 1973.
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution c~ India.
M. C. Chitale, Naunit Lal and Lalita Kohli, for the petitioners.
M. K Ramamurthy and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
GoswAMI, J. This writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution raises the question of the constitutional tradition of the J ammu
and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 (Act of XXXVI of 1972),
•
•
r
A
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
FIDA ALI v. J & K STATE (Goswami, J.)
341
briefly called the Act, and the rules framed thereunder. The peti·
tioners are land-owners in the State of J ammu and Kashmir and their
grievance is that by the impugned Act they along with a large number
of similar land-owners have been rendered landless.
They further
allege that the amount _intended to be paid as compensation is illus0ry
and the Act is, therefore, of a confiscatc~y nature. They also illlege
that exclusion of an 'orchard' from the definition of 'land' under section 2 ( 4) of the Act is motivated and designed in the interests of
highly placed intluential persons in the State who ciwn such orchards.
By taking an additional ground, they also aver that the Act is not saved
by the provisions of Article 3 lA of the Constitution as applicable to
the State of J ammu and Kashmir since it is not a piece of legislation
bearing on agrarian reform.
The respondent bas denied that above averments and other allegations in the petition by means of an affidavit affirmed by the Special
Revenue Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is
claimed that the Act is protected by Article 31A of the Ccnstitution
and is immune from challenge on the ground of violation of Articles
14, I 9 and 31 of the Constitution. According to the respondent the
Act is passed in c~der to ensure better production avoiding concentration of means of production in the hands of a few and to annihilate
the exploitation of the peasantry. With regard to the objection regarding compensation, it is stated that the minimum rate of compensation
has been fixed and the same is not illusory. It is further stated that
the Government is in the process of framing rules for the mode of paying compensation and the instalments of payment of the compensation
would certainly be reasonable.
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Act
is protected under Article 31 A of the Constitution as applicable to the
State of J ammu and Kashmir providing, as claimed by the State, for
a scheme of agrarian reforms. If the answer is in the affirmative. all
objections under Articles 14, 19 and 31 would be of no avail.
This
legal position is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and indeed is well-settled. by several decisions of this
Court
(See
Kavalappara Kottarathit Kochuni ana Others v. The State of Madras
and Others;(') Ranjit
Singh and
Others v. State of Punjab and
Others;(') State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Anand Brahma Shah-(')
The Kc/ionan Devan Hills Produce v. The State of Kera/a and An·
o~her;(
4
) and State of Kera/a and Another v. The Gwalior Rayon
Szlk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. etc.).(')
We may now, therefore, turn to the Act to determine whether the
im~ugned legislation ca~ come under the canopy of protection of
Article. 31 A of the Constitution. The Act itself carries the appellation
"A!p'~na'.1 Reforms Act.".
These words,
themselves,
may not be
decisive m the absence of provisions in the Act disclosing a genuine
Ol [I960J (3) s.c.R. 887
(3) [1967] (1) S.C.R. 362
(5) AIR [1973] S.C.C. 2734
(2) [1965] (I) S.C.R. 82
(4) [1972](2) s.c.c. 218
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 1 S.C.R.
scheme of agrarian reform.
We will, therefore, examine the material
provisions of the Act with that end in view.
It is apparent from section 51 of the Act that the legislatnre had
earlier passed The Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition
Act, 2007; The Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980; The Jammu
and Kashmir Tenancy (Stay of Ejectment Proceedings) Act, 1966;
The Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 and The Jammu
and Kashmir Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1962.
By section 51
the provisions of these Acts in so far as they are inconsistent with
the provisions of the present Act shall cease to apply subject to the
provisos appended to the Section.
The State Legislature, therefore,
did not start on a clean slate. Indeed, the petitioners, curiously enough,
make a grievance that the State of J ammu and Kashmir was the "first
State in the whole of India which enacted drastic Jaws detrimental to
the interests of land-owners right from the year 1948". The petitioners
seem to attribute even oblique motive in enacting the Act to which
we shall revert hereafter at the appropriate place.
Coming back to the provisions of the Act, the preamble shows
that the Act has to provide for comprehensive legislation relating to
land reforms in the State of Jammu and Kashmi.r. Tlie Act, although
it received the assent of the Governor on November 27, 1972, was
brought into force on the first day of May, 1973. Section 2 contains
the definitions.
By section 2 (2) 'ceiling area' means the extent of
land or orchards or both measuring twelve and a half standard acres.
By section 2( 4) "'land' means land which is occupied, or has been
let, for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture,
or for pasture, and includes-
( a) structures on such land used for purposes connected
with agriculture;
(b) trees standing on such land;
(c) areas covered by, or fields floating over, water; and
(d) forest lands and wooded wastes;
but does not include-
(i) the sites of buildings in a town or village Abadi
or any land appurtenant to such building or site;
· (ii) any land which was an orchard on the first day
of September, 1971; and
(iii) any land in respect of which specific provision
has been made in Chapter III".
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
By section 2(5) "'orchard' means a compact area of 'and having fruit
trees grown thereon or devoted to cultivation of fruit trees in such
number that t;hey preclude, or when fully grown would preciude, such
land from bemg used for any other agricultural purpose".
H
Chapter II provides for various restrictions on rights in land.
Section 3 with which it opens runs as follows :-
•
•
.,
•
'
A
B
c
E
F
G
FIDA ALI v. J & K STATE (Goswami, /.)
343
"Vesting in the State of rights of owners and intermediaries in land not held in personal cu!tivation.-Nothwitrustanding anything contained in any law for the time being
in force, the right of ownership of any person and the right
of any intermediary in land not held by him in his perso~al
cultivation on the first day of September, 1971, shall extmguish and shall vest in the State with effect from the appointed date :
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the right
of a mortgagee without possession, if any, on the land".
The other relevant sections in Chapter II are as follows :-
Section 4. "Vesting of land in excess of ceiling area in
the State.-Notwithstanding anything
contained in
any law for the time being in force-
(a) Where any land,
including that
retainable under
section 53, held by an individual in his
personal
cultivation whether as owner or as tenant or otherwise is, along with orchards owned by him, in excess of the ceiling area on the !st day of September,
1971, the excess land shall vest in the State with effect
from the appointed date subject to the right of a
mortgagee without possession, if any, on the land;
( b) Where aggregate land, including that retainable under
section 53, held by the members of a family, whether
jointly or severally or both, in their personal cultivation as owners or as tenants or otherwise, along with
orchards owned by them, is in excess of the ceiling
area on the !st day of September, 1971, the excess
land shall vest in the
State with effect
from the
appointed date, subject to the rights of
mortgagee
without possession, if any, on the land :
Provided that each such individual or each such member
of the family, as the case may be, shall have the option of
selecting, in the prescribed manner, the land he desires to
retain with himself within the limits provided for in subsection (1) of section 12 :
Provided further that no land in a demarcated forest shall be so
selected."
Section 5. "Vesting of
ownership
rights in
land held in
personal cu!tivation.-The land vested in the
State
~nder section 3 sh~ll subject to the provisions of sect~on 4 and to .the ngh's of mortgagee without possesH
s10n thereon, 1f any, and on payment of such levy in
full as may be pr~scribed, vest in ownership rights
'? the person holdmg such land in personal cultivation on the first day of September, 1971 or in the
4-L! 77Sup.Cl/75
344
.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l s.c.R.·
person claiming through him, an)thing contained in
any Jaw for the time being in force notwithstanding."
Section 6. ·•Payments in lieu of acquisition.-All lands and
rights therein taken away or abridged by sections 3,
4 and 8 shall be deemed to have be~n· acquired by
the State with effect from the date such land or rights
are vested in the State and payment in lieu thereof
shall be determined in accordance
with the rules
made under this Act".
x
x
x
x
x
x
Section 7 ... Resumption.-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, any person whose monthly income
does not exceed Rs. 500.00P and who was, on the
first day of September, 1971, an inh~bitant of the area
to which this Act applies and was an owner of land
not held by him in his personal cultivation may resume a unit of land not exceeding three
standard
acres for personal cultivation and for that purpose
apply to the prescribed authority, in the prescribed
manner, within a period of one hundred and. eighty
days from the appointed date. The prescribed authQrity shall n~t hold an enquiry into the application fu
tbo prescribed manner and pass appropriate orders
thereon
We need not quote the six provisos and the explanation to the section.
We may empaasise that section 7 appropriately provides an incentive
to personal cultivation by resumption of land on pain of extinguishment of the rights on failure to bring the land resumed under personal
cultivation within a specified period.
Section 8. "Consequences of failure to bring resumed land
under personal cultivation:-
(!) An.y owner who has resumed _land or for whom land
has been resumed and who has entered into possession
thereof under section· 7, shall bring such land under
his. personal· cultivation
within a period of. eight
months from the date of entry into possession, failing
which his rights in such land shall, subject to the provisions of sub section (2) extinguish.
( 2) If the prescribed authority after holding an enquiry.
in the prescribed manner finds that the owner has
failed to bring the land under his personal cultivation ·
within the period mentioned in sub-section (1) it shall
declare all rights, title and interests of the owner fa
such· land to have extinguished and all rights, title
and interest in su:h land shall vest in the State subject
to the rights of a mortgagee without possession there- ·
of, if any, and such land sha]] be disposed of in
accordance with section 10".
A
B
c
u
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
FIDA AU v. J & K STATE (Goswami, J.)
Section JO. "Disposal of surplus land.-Where any land, vested in the State under this Act,. becomes surplus, the
G;ivernment shall be competent to dispose it of in
consideration of such levy and subject to such terms
ar.J c:> .. 1itions and in such manner as may be prescribed, anything contained in any law· for the time
being in for·:e no~withstanding".
345
Section 11 provides foi. restriction on future acquisitions, ·tenancies
and transfers.
Section· 12 deals with land held in excess of ceiling.
Section 13 provides for disposal of excess land acquired under. sectiqn
12. Section 15 provides for prohibition on transfer of land,.
·
Chapter III deals with evacuees' lands with whiCh we are not
concerned.
Chapter IV deals with orchards .. By section 25 there is a levy .
of annual tax in respect of such portio.n of an orchard as is, on the
commencement of this Act or shall at any time thereafter be, in exces.s
of 12! standard acres. A machinery is provided under. the Act for
collection of taxes and appointment of Assessing Officers in accordance with the prescribed rules. Thus although orchards on the specified
date, unlike land, do not vest in the State, the excess area suffers a
levy of annual tax. The very definition of orchard permits .this special
treatment in the case of orchards in excess of the ceiling area.
Chapter V. deals with jurisdiction. and procedure and Chapter· VI
provides for penalties.
.
Section 46 provides for· excluding certain specified
lands ·. from
operation .of the Act. By section 47 the provisions of this Act shall
have an overriding effect on other Jaws or any custom !Jr usage or contract; etc. By section 48 power is reserved to .the Goverrurient to issue
instructions.
Section 49 provides for a summary procedure· for all
proceedings and enquiries under the Act or the ·rules.. Section 50
provides for the rule making power.
We have already ·noticed section 51. By section 52 all applications. suits and proceedings pending
before any Revenue Officer, Civil or Revenue Court, etc. shall 'abate
subject to the proviso· appended to the section. By section 5_4, which.
is the last section, transfers of lands or orchards to defeat the provisions of the Act shall not be recognised and shall be deemed to be
owned. by such persons for purposes of calculating the area retainable
under the Act by them.
The ,zolden web, throughout the· warp and woof of the Act, is the
Ie-atu,re of personal cultivation of the land.· The expression. 'personal
cultivation' which·runs through sections 3,4;5,7 and 8 is defined with
care under section 2 (7) in a detailed manner with a proviso and six
explanations.
I,:
From " review of the foregci'ng provisions it is obvious that the
Act contains a clear pro'!Tamme of agrarian reforms in taking stock
of tlie J.and in the State which is not in personal cultivation (section 3)
,,
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
and which though in personal cultivation is in excess of the ceiling
area (section 4). A ceiling area is fixed for land or orcl':ards or both
measuring 12t standard acres.
After the land vests in the State, in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, a provision is made for disposal of the surplus land in accordance with the rules.
The main focus of the Act is to see that the tillers, who form the
back-bone of the agricultural economy, are provided with !arid for the
purpose of personal cultivation subject to the ceiling provision even
in their case. The Act makes effective provisions for creating a granary of land at the disposal of the State for, equitable distribution,
subject to the limit, amongst the tillers of the soil and even the owners
who would make 'personal cultivation' of the same within the meaning of the Act. In the nature of things it is imperative that a ceiling·
area has to be fixed and those who have so far enjoyed land in large
tracts mostly without personally, cultivating the s·ime, are required to
share with others who have no land of their own but are genuine tillers of the soiL Even so, no one is allowed to own more than the
ceiling area.
In fixing the ceiling area again land and orchards are both included.
We do not see any justification for the comment, adverted to
above, that there is any discrimination in favour of the orchard-owners
A
B
c
D
in not including land which was an orchard on the first day of September, 1971 within the definition of land under the Act since
'orchard' is reckoned along with the 'land' for the purpose of determi-
!l'atfon of the ceiling area under the Act.
Further Chapter IV deals
E
specifically with orchards and under section 25 a levy of annual tax
is imposed even in the case of orchards in excess of 12t standard
acres. The respective definitions of 'land' and 'orchard' under the Act
clearly permit of some special treatment to orchards in view of the
scheme of the entire Act. Since rand under the Act has an intimate
nexus with purposes subservient to agriculture or pasture, there is
reason for excluding 'orchard' which is a compact area having fruit
F
trees grown thereon in such number that they preclude it from being
used for any other agricultural purpose. It is common knowledge that
mchards have special significance in the State witt1 which we arc
concerned. We also do not fail to notice that under section 4(2) of
the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act (Act 17 of 2007) (1950 AD.)
extinction of the right of ownership under section 4 (1 ) of that Act
had not been made applicable to orchards. No motive can be attriG
buled to the legislature in the choice of legislation within its consti-
!utior1al competence. We, therefore, do not find any merit whatsoever in the objection on the score of motive or that there is
any
unreasonable discrimination in favour of the orchard-owners as such.
On the other hand, the predominant object underlying the provisions of the Act is agrarian reforms.
Agrarian reforms
n_aturally
cannot take the same pattern throughout the country.
Besides the
avaliability of land for the purpose, limited in scope in the nature of
H
•
•
~·
A
B
c
FIDA ALI v. J & K STATE (Goswt1J11i, J.)
347.
things, the scheme has to fit in \Vith. the local conditions, variability of
climate, rain-fall, peculiarity of terrain, suitability and profitability of
multiple crop vatterns, vulnerability to floods and so many other factors in formulating a scheme of agrarian reforlllS suita.ble to a particular State. While a modest beginning b made with the land at dis- ·
posal, modern methods of mechanisation and other improvements can
be <'sorted to with the help of the State nuchinery availabk to the
tiJlcrs of the soil. Such details can be worked out gradually by various
processes in the course of implementation of the provisions of the Act
and the rules which· definitely provide sufficient elasticity. We are o{
opinion that the impugned Act has been passed with the definite 01'-.
j~ct of agrarian .reforms and cannot be successfully challenged on the·
score of violation of .Article 14, Article 19 •and Article 31.in view of
the provisions of Article 3IA. The application, therefore, fails and
is dismissed. The parties will pay and bear their o_wn costs.
P~itiv11 dis111iSscd.
s.c.