# GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ORS v. S. B. KAMBLE AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 885
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975
- **Bench:** H. R. KHAN.'iA, P. N. B1Iagwaj'J, P. K. Gosw, \J\Ij
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/godavari-sugar-mills-ltd-and-ors-v-s-b-kamble-and-ors-6411
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Mllharashtra Agricultural Land,- (Ceilings aiul Holdi11gs) Act, (27 of 1961)
as amrnded by Acts of 1968, 1969 and 19i0-Prbicipa/ Act i11ci11ded in rhe Nin//;
.\rhedu/e-Amending Acts if prolected by Art. 31A or 31B.
.
The l\faharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act .1961 t:ame
into force on fanuary 26. 1962.
The constitutional validity of ihe A~t wa.~
· challcngcJ in the High Court and 1he High Court held that the provisions of the
A~t. other than s. 28, were a measure of agrarian reform and were protected
by Art. 3 lA of the Con•titution .. St;ction 28, however, was held to be violative
of .Art. 14.
In_ 1964, the Constltu.!Ion \17th Amendme'!t) Act wu passed, as
a rewlt of which the 1961 Act, mcludmg s. 28. was included in the Ninth
Schedule. The 1961 Act was amended by various Maharashtra Acts namely
Ac! .16 of i968, 33 of 1968, 37 of 1969 and 27 of 1970. The
con~t:.tutional
validity of the 1961-A~t as amended by the vari_o1!S Maharashtra Acts; was again
challenged but the High Court upheld the validity of the Act u mnended on
the ground that it was protected by Arts. 31A and 31B of the Constitulfon.
0
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
F
G
ff
liELD: Though the various amendments to the Act of 1961 were not
protected by Art. 3 IB, they are, however. protected by Art. 3 IA of the
Constitution. [898 C-D; 907 A-Bl
·
1 (a) The object of Art. 31B is to give a blanket protection to the Acts and
Regulations specified in Ninth Schedule and the provisions of those Acts and
Regulations, against any challenge to them on the ground that they are incon-
~istent with, or take away, or abridge, any of the fundamental rights in Part m.
This immunity would be available notwithstanding any judgment, decree Or order
of any court or tribunal to the contrary! [S96 H-897 Bl
(Ii) The specification of an Act or. Regulation in the schedule would not
prevent the competent legislature from repealing or amending it.
The inclusion
of the Act or Regulation in the Ninth Schedule would protect not only the
principal Act or Regulation which is included in the Mnth Schedule but also
the amendments whi:h have been made therein till the date of she,/1 inclusio11
even though the constitutional amendment by which it is included in the Ninth
Schedule refers only to the Principal Act or Regulation and not to the amendments made till then. [897 C-D]
(c) But the inclusion in the Ninth Schedule would not extend the protection
lo any amendmen'.s made in the Act or Regulation after the date of its inclusion
in the Ninth Schedule. The inclusion of the A:t or Regulation in the Ninth
Schedule is brought about mtly by means of an amendment of the Constitution
by the prescribed majority in each house of Parliament under Art. 368. It is for
the prescribed majority in each house, to decide whether a particular Act or
Regulation should be inserted in the Ninth Schedule. In cate the PTO!ection
afforded by the Article is ex'.ended to amendmen11 made In tbe /i;;t or Regulation
subsequent tci its inc~usion in the S~hedule., the ~It would be •. f!iat C\'C!l those
proviswns would en1oy the protection which were never scrutinised and could
• not, in !he very nature of things. have been scrut;inised by the presen'bed majority
vested with· the power of amending the Constitution. It would be tantamount
to giving a power to State Legislatures to amend tlte Constitution in such a way
as wolllcjl enlarge the contents of Ninth Schedule. {897 'D-H]
(d) The protection of Art: 31B.cannot also be .invoked .for a new provision
inserted by amendmcn.t after m~lu~1on of the 'Act m '.h.e Nmth Sc~edule on !he
ground that it is ancillary or mc1dental to tie rrov1S1ons to which protectmn
s 86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 197 51 3 s.c.R.
has already been afforded by such inclmion. Any provision which has the effect
of making an inroad into the guarantee of fundamental rights s(10uld be construed
very strictly and it would not be permissible to widen the scope of such a
provision or to exten

## Text

_Characters 0–38,990 of 74,952. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38990 for what follows._

A
c
885
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ORS.
V.
S. B. KAMBLE AND ORS.
March 7. 1975
[H. R. KHAN.'iA, P. N. B1IAGWAJ'J AND P. K. GOSW,\J\IJ, JJ.]
Mllharashtra Agricultural Land,- (Ceilings aiul Holdi11gs) Act, (27 of 1961)
as amrnded by Acts of 1968, 1969 and 19i0-Prbicipa/ Act i11ci11ded in rhe Nin//;
.\rhedu/e-Amending Acts if prolected by Art. 31A or 31B.
.
The l\faharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act .1961 t:ame
into force on fanuary 26. 1962.
The constitutional validity of ihe A~t wa.~
· challcngcJ in the High Court and 1he High Court held that the provisions of the
A~t. other than s. 28, were a measure of agrarian reform and were protected
by Art. 3 lA of the Con•titution .. St;ction 28, however, was held to be violative
of .Art. 14.
In_ 1964, the Constltu.!Ion \17th Amendme'!t) Act wu passed, as
a rewlt of which the 1961 Act, mcludmg s. 28. was included in the Ninth
Schedule. The 1961 Act was amended by various Maharashtra Acts namely
Ac! .16 of i968, 33 of 1968, 37 of 1969 and 27 of 1970. The
con~t:.tutional
validity of the 1961-A~t as amended by the vari_o1!S Maharashtra Acts; was again
challenged but the High Court upheld the validity of the Act u mnended on
the ground that it was protected by Arts. 31A and 31B of the Constitulfon.
0
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
F
G
ff
liELD: Though the various amendments to the Act of 1961 were not
protected by Art. 3 IB, they are, however. protected by Art. 3 IA of the
Constitution. [898 C-D; 907 A-Bl
·
1 (a) The object of Art. 31B is to give a blanket protection to the Acts and
Regulations specified in Ninth Schedule and the provisions of those Acts and
Regulations, against any challenge to them on the ground that they are incon-
~istent with, or take away, or abridge, any of the fundamental rights in Part m.
This immunity would be available notwithstanding any judgment, decree Or order
of any court or tribunal to the contrary! [S96 H-897 Bl
(Ii) The specification of an Act or. Regulation in the schedule would not
prevent the competent legislature from repealing or amending it.
The inclusion
of the Act or Regulation in the Ninth Schedule would protect not only the
principal Act or Regulation which is included in the Mnth Schedule but also
the amendments whi:h have been made therein till the date of she,/1 inclusio11
even though the constitutional amendment by which it is included in the Ninth
Schedule refers only to the Principal Act or Regulation and not to the amendments made till then. [897 C-D]
(c) But the inclusion in the Ninth Schedule would not extend the protection
lo any amendmen'.s made in the Act or Regulation after the date of its inclusion
in the Ninth Schedule. The inclusion of the A:t or Regulation in the Ninth
Schedule is brought about mtly by means of an amendment of the Constitution
by the prescribed majority in each house of Parliament under Art. 368. It is for
the prescribed majority in each house, to decide whether a particular Act or
Regulation should be inserted in the Ninth Schedule. In cate the PTO!ection
afforded by the Article is ex'.ended to amendmen11 made In tbe /i;;t or Regulation
subsequent tci its inc~usion in the S~hedule., the ~It would be •. f!iat C\'C!l those
proviswns would en1oy the protection which were never scrutinised and could
• not, in !he very nature of things. have been scrut;inised by the presen'bed majority
vested with· the power of amending the Constitution. It would be tantamount
to giving a power to State Legislatures to amend tlte Constitution in such a way
as wolllcjl enlarge the contents of Ninth Schedule. {897 'D-H]
(d) The protection of Art: 31B.cannot also be .invoked .for a new provision
inserted by amendmcn.t after m~lu~1on of the 'Act m '.h.e Nmth Sc~edule on !he
ground that it is ancillary or mc1dental to tie rrov1S1ons to which protectmn
s 86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 197 51 3 s.c.R.
has already been afforded by such inclmion. Any provision which has the effect
of making an inroad into the guarantee of fundamental rights s(10uld be construed
very strictly and it would not be permissible to widen the scope of such a
provision or to extend the frontiers of the protected zone beyond what is warranted by the language of the provision. The entitlement to protection being
confined only to the Acts, Regulations and provisions which
are
expressly
mentioned in that Schedule, it cannot be extended to provisions which were
not included therein.
This Jhinciple would hold good irrespective of the fact
whether the provision.
to which entitlement to protection is sought to be
extended, deals with new substantive matters or whether it d~als with· llllatterR
which are incidental or ancillary to those already protected. [897 H-898 DJ
Sri Ram Ram Narain Mcdhi v. State of Bombay [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 489,
Saiian Singh v. State of Raiafthan; (1965] 1 S.C.R. 933; State of Orissa v.
Cha11dra Sekhar Singh Bhoi etc. [1970) I S.C.R. 593 anti State of Maharashtra
etc. v. Madhavrao Damodar Pati/chand & Ors., [1968) 3 S.C.R. 712, followed.
(e) The case of Raman/al Guiab Chand Shah v. State of Guja.-at [1969] 1
SCR 42 does not lay down, as had been assumed by the High Court. that if
an amending Act does not cover a new field but contains only provisions which
arc incidental and anci!Jary to those which are protected by Art. 3 IB, the Amend.
ing Act would also get the protection of that Article. [900 C-D]
2 (a) The pr;nciples applicable in order to find out whether an impugned
enactment for acquisition of land is protected by Art. 3 IA are :
A
B
c
(i) Acquisition of land by the State should be for the purpose of agrarian
D
refom1. The scope of a1;rarian reform is wider than that of land reform.
(ii) Acquisition of land by taking it from a senior member of the family
and giving it to a junior member is not a measure of agrarian reform.
(iii) Acquisition of land for urban slum clearance or for a housing scheme
in the neighbourhood of a big city is not a measure of agrarian reform.
(iv) Acquisition of land by the State without specifying the purpose for
which land is to be used is not a measure of agrarian reform.
( v) But scbenie·; of rural development envisaging not only equitable distri·
bution of land b•1t also raising of economic standards and the bettering of
rural health and so~ial conditions in the villages, by making provision tor the
assignment of land to a Panchayat for the use of the general community or
for hospitals, s1:hools, manure pits, tanning grounds etc. which ensure for the
benefit of the rural population, constitu.te a measure of agrarian reform.
(vi) Provision for reservation of land for promotion of agriculture it:ad for
the welfare of agricultural population constitutes a measure of agrarian reform.
(vii) If the dominant and general purpose of the scheme is agrarian n~form,
the scheme may provide for ancillary prov:isions to give full effect to the
scheme.
(viii) A provision fixing ceiling area and providing for the disposal ·~f the
surplus land in accordan~e with rules to implement a programme of agrarian
reform is a measure of agrarian reform. [905 A-OJ
Kavalappara Kottarathl Kochuni & Ors. v. The State of MadrM & A111-.
(1960] 3 SCR 887; P. Vajravelu
Muda/iar
v.
Special Collector
[1965)
1
SCR 614; Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Puniab & Ors.
[1965] 1 SCR 82;
Ba/madies Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1973) 1 SCR 258: Kanan
Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. The State of Krrala & Anr. (1973] 1 SCR 356
and State of Kerala &: Anr. v. Gwalior Rayo11 Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. etc.
[1973] 2 OCC
713, and Fida Ali v. Stare
of Jammu and Kashmir, [19141
2 SCC 253 referred In.
(b) In !he ]:f!"escnt case a conspectU3 of the different provisions of the
'.mpugned Act goes to show that the main purpose of the Act was to prevent
concentration of agricultural land in the hands of a few.
Section 3 ol'
the
impugned Act imposes a ceiling on holding of agricultu.ral land.
S. 4 provides
that no person shall hold land in excess of ceiling.
Under s. 14 inquiry is to
E
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS v. s. B. KAMBLE (Khanna, J.)
88 7
~e made for determining such excess. On completion of inquiry a declaration
is made under s. 21 giving particulars of the area which is delimited as surplus
land.
Possession of such surplus land is then taken by the Colle;tor on behalf
o! the s.tate Government free of all encumbrances.
Section 27 provides for the
distnbut10n of surplus land, and s. 28 makes a special provision in respect of
lands taken over from industrial undertakings to ensure efficiem cultivation and
~ontinued supply of raw-material for those undertakings.
For such a purpose,
if the State Government considers it necessary to ma:.ntain the integrity of the
land acquired from the industrial undertaking in one or more compact blocks, it
might, subject to terms and conditions, grant the land or any pan thereof to a
joint farming society or a member thereof consisting, as far as possible of the
persons specified in that section. (905 G-906 CJ
'
(c) From the preamble to the Amending Act 27 of 1970 and the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it appears that effo11s to set
up a joint farming society as contemplated by s. 28 of the Act did not bear fruit
in spi~ of the fact that the tim~ for >etling up of those societies was extended.
The State Government also found that sh@rt extensions of time was hampering
the full and efficient use of tre land for agriculture and the Maharashtra State
Farming Corporation, which hact been cultivating that land for the interim
period, could not undertake any plans or schemes for the improvement of the
land because of the short extensions. The State Government, therefore, decided
that the cultivation of the land might be continued wi.h the Maharashtra Stat~
Farming Corporation on a permanent basis. In arriving at this decision the
State Government was also influenced by the consideration that the implementa-'
tion of the joint farming spcieties &:heme would lead to fragmentation of thP.
land and hamper its economic development and for implementing this purpose.
». 28-IAA was inserted in the Act anC: the other amendments of the principal
Act were made, by Act 27 of 1970. [906 C-F]
(d) It could not be contended that only distribution of acquired land among
landless persons dr poor peasants would constitute agrarian reform, and that,
when lands of industrial undertakings are not so distributed but had to he
cultivated by the State Farming Corporation, the acquisition cannot be considered
to be a measure of agrarian reform.
The acquisition of land held by industrial
undertakings is not to be taken in isolation but as part of the general scheme
and object of the
Act that there should be a ceiling on private holdin!li.
S. 28-lAA has to be taken in its context and ~tiog with the other provision.~
of the Act.
Ordinarily distribution of acquired surplus land of individuals
among landless persons and poor peasants is part of the scheme of agrarian
reform. The legislature here has made special provision in respect of land held
by an industrial undertaking, in order to prevent the fragmentation of a large
tra.ct of land and to subserve the purpose of supplying raw-material to the
undertaking and provided that it should be cultivated by a State OWJ.led farmmg
corporation. Acquisition simpliciter of land by the State to augment its re<;ourceil
and without specifying the purpose for which it is to be used after acquisition
would not get the protection of An. 3 IA. To decide the question of protection.
the general scheme of the statute containing the provision for the acqui,ition,
the object of the acquisition, and the reasons which weighed for retaining tho
land with the State or its corporation without distributing it among the landlei;s
persoEs and poor peasants, must be considered. The. concept of agrarian reform
is ·not static and with the change of times, u.nder the impact of fresh ideas
and in the context of fresh situations, the concept of agrarian reform is bound
to acquire new dimensions. A measure which has. the effect of improving the
rural economy or promoting rural welfare would be a part of agrarian reform.
The fa:t that part of the acquired land would remain vested in the State
Government or· a State owned farming corporation would not therefore militate
against the object of agrarian reform, if the continued vesting of the land in
the Gove,.ment or the corporation is a part of the general scheme of agrarian
reform and there is no oblique deviation from the avowed purpose, especially
when it is in the interest of rural economy that the compact area instead of
being fraogmcnted by distribution. be preserved as one compact block cultivated
by the State owned farm'..ng corporation. [907 E-908 CJ
Ra11jit Singh v. State of Punjab [1965] 1 S.C.R. 82. followed.
888
SUPREME ~T
llRPORTS.
£19751 3 S.C:.ll.
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN : Civil Appeal
No.
1426 of
1974.
From the judgment and order dated the
315/8-4-74 of the
Bomb11y High Court in S.C.A. 1271 /tj8.
A
A.
1 K. Se11 M. C. Bhandare, D. M. Popat, S. I.
Thakore, P H.
f'arek
and Sunanda Blumdare, for the appellant.
B
n De, Attorney General of India and M. N. Shroff, for
the
ents l-4.
I.
. Shroff, and J. C. Bhatt, for respondent No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
.
KHA NA, J.
The short question which arisl:S in this appeal filed
on cert· cate by Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. a~d its two. sharehold~
directors· against the judgment of the Bombay High Court is the constitutional ~alidity of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on H@ldings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act No. 27 of
1961)
(hereinafter
referred t.o as the principal Act) as amended by Maharashtra Acts
Nos. 16 pf 1968, 33 of 1968, 37 of 1969 and 27 of 1970. The High
Court ha$ upheld the validity of the Act on t~e ~und that it is J~ro
~ected by· article~ 31A and 31B of the Coristitut1on.
The priricipal Ac~ came into force. on January 7:6· 1962: ~ccord
ing to its long title, 1t was an act to impose a maximum llnut
(or
c:eiling) on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra; to provide for the acquisition and distribution of land held
illl excess of such ceiling; and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid. Section 3 of the Act deals with ceiling on holding
of agricultural land. According to that section, in order to provide for
the more equitable dis•ribution of agricultural
land
amongst
the
peasantry of the State of Maharashtra (and in particular, to provide
that landless persons are given land for personal cultivation), on the
commencement of the Act, there shall be imposed to the extent, and
in the manner hereinafter provided, a maximuin limit (or ceiling) on
the holding of agricultural land throughout the State. Section 4 pr~
vid_es that. no perso~ shall hold land in excess of the ceilinq area,
while section 5 specifies as to what area would constitute ceiling area
under each class of land in specified local area. Returns have--to be
submitted to .the Collector in respect of surplus land ·under section
12 of the Act. Section 14 gives power to the Collector to hold an
enquiry for de•ermining as to what area in resoect of the holdirtJ( of
a person should be declared to be in excess of the ceiling area.·· On
completion of tlte enquiry if the Collector finds tlie holding of a per-son
in excess of thi! ceiling area the Collector shall make a declaration
under section 21 of tlie Act about the area, descrin'inn and full particulars of the land wliieh is delimitPd ns_sumlus t:ind. The dechral'ion
~~ ttien notified. under section 2 t (2) in the oinc;al Gaz .. tte. Accnrdme to ~b-sectton ( 4.) of. •hat section. the Collector. sliall after the
pahlieatiOn of the nntt?cation under sub-se<:tion.(2) t~l<e in the ore~
cin"bed manner possession of the land which is deliinited as surplus
c
D
F
G
H
\
B
D
E
G
II
GODAV,ARJ SUGAR MILLS \', s. B. KAMBLE (Khanna, !.)
Is 8 9
land. lt is further provided that the surplus land shall with eff~ from
the date on wiuch tne possession thereof is taken a:. aforesai.d be, (
deemed to be acqwred by the State Government for the purp<>ses of'
the Act and shall accord:ngly vest free from ail encumbrances in the
State Gov~rnm~n l. Section 2 7 makes provis10n for the distribution of
the surplus L.inJ. S2ction 28 of tne Act makes provision in respect of
land taKen over from inuustnal undertakmg to ensure eflicient cultivation and con•inucd supply of raw material. The sec.ion as it stood
before its amendment by Act 33 of 1968 read as under:-
"28. ( 1) Where any land hcid by an industrial undertaking is acquired by, and vests, in the State Government
under section 21, such land being land which was
being
used for the purpose of producing or providing raw mateiiaJ for the manufacture or production of any goods, articles
or commodities by the uudertaking, the State Govern'ment'
shall t(tkc particular care to ensure that the acquisition of the
land does not affect adversely the production and supply of
raw i;!aterial from the land to the undertaking.
(2) Notwithstanding anytiting contained in section 27
but subject to any rules made in this behalf for the purpose
of so ensuring the continuance of the supply of such raw
material to the 1mdertaking, and generally for the full and
efficient use of the land for agriculture and its efficient
management, the State Gove~mment-
( a) may, if it is in the opinion of that Government
necessary for the purpose aforesaid (such opinion being
formed after considering .the:
representation
'>f
persons
interested therein) maintain 'he integrity o~ the area so
acquired, in one or more compact blocks, and
(b) may, subject to such terms and conditiom (including in particular, conditions which are calculated to ensure
the full and continued supply of raw material to the undertaking at a fair price), grant the land or any part thereof
to a joint farming society (or a member thereof) consisting
as far as possible, of-
(i) persons who had previously leased such land to the
1.mdertaking,
(ii) agricultural labour (if any) employed by the undertaking on such land,
( iii) technical or other staff engaged by the undertaking
on such land, or in relation to the production or
supply of any raw ma•erial,
' \
(iv) adjoining landholder who arc small holders .. ,
( v) landless pers0ns :
Provided that, the State Government may-
.
(a) for such period as is necessary for the setting up of
joint farming societies as 11foresaid being not more than
8 110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[197 5] 3 S.C.R.
three years iii the first instance (extensible to a
furt~er
period-not exceeding two years) from the date of taking
po~session of the land, direct that the land acqmred, or any
part thereof, shall be cultiva·ed by one or more farms .ruo
or managed by the State, or by one or more corporations
(inc;uding a company) owned or controlled by the State :
< b) grant to the land.ord so much of the surplus land
leai;ed by him to the under aking, which together wi.h any
other land held by him does not exceed the ceiling area
(but if the landlord be a public trust and the major portion
of the income from the land is being appropriated for purposes of education or medical relief, grant the en'ire land
to the public trust) on condition that the landlord, or as the
c~e may be, the public trust lease the land to a farm or
corporation described in clause (a) aforesaid, and
thereafter, in the case of a landlord (not being a public trust) that
·he becomes a member of the joint farming society, and in
the case of a public trust, that it leases the land to a joint
farming society.
(3) The State Government may provide that,-
(a) for the breach of any term or condition referred to
in clause (b) of sub-section ( 2), or
(bl if the landlord to whom the land is granted fails
to lease the land to the farm or corporation or to become
a member of a joint farming society;
( c) if it c:onsiders after such inquiry as it thinks fit, that
the production and supply of raw material to the undertaking is not maintained at the level or in the manner which,
with proper and efficient management it ought to be maintained, or
·
( d) for any other reason it is undesirable in the interest
of the full and efficient cultivation of the !and, that tht joint
farming socfoty, should
continue to
cultivate the land,
the grant shall, after giving three months' notice or termination thereof and after giving the other party reasonably
opportunity of showing cause, be termina'ed, and the land
resumed. Thereafter, the State Government may make such
other arrangements as it thinks fit for the proper cultivation
of the land and main'enance of the production and supoly
of raw· material to the undertaking.
'
At this stage we may advert to the facts giving rise to the present
appeal. The appellant company OW!ls two fac'ories for the
manufacture ~f sugar and allie~ P!oducts. The company held large areas
?f land '.n Ahmednagar district for the cultivation of sugarcane for
tt.9 factones. On Marcl-i 1, 1963 Special De11uty Collector respondent
No .. 2 declared an area of 8468 acres 26t gunthas in village Sakarwad1 held by lhe appellant company to be in excess of the ceiling
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS v. s. B. KAMBLB (Khanna, I.)
8 9 1
A
a~ea. On March 7, 1963 Special Deputy Collector respondent No. 1
passed an order declaring 2677 a~res 16. gunthas of appe~lant-com
pany's land situated in Lakshnuwach to be m excess of the ceilmg area.
Thus a total area of 12146 arres ; guntha was declared to be surplus. Appeals against the aforesaid oroers were filed by the appellant
company to the Maharashtra Revenue Tnbunal.. The appellants & ~ome
others also filed petitions challengmg the const1tut10~al valld1cy of the
principal Act. A Division Bench ot the Bombay High Court as per
judgment dated October 25, 1963 delivered in a petition file~ . by
another party upheld the constitutional v~lidity of all the prov1s1onii
of the principal Act, except section 28 which was struck down. lt w~
held that the provisions of the Act other than section 28 · were a
measure of agr\).rian reform and as such protected by article 31A of
the Constitution. Section 28 was held to be violative of article 1 .. of
the Constitution.
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
On June 20, 1964 the Constitution ·(Seventeenth Amendment)
Act was passed. As a result of the Seventeenth Amendment of
the
Constitution the principal Act including section 28 was included in
the Niruth Schedule. The petition filed by the appellants challenging
the validity of the principal Act was in view of the Seventeenth Amendment dism~ed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on
March 10, 1965. The appellants came up in appeal to this Court
against the judgment of the Bombay High Court but that appeal was
dismissed by this Court on April 10, 1968. The judgment of this
Court is reported in (1968) 3 SCR 712. It may be stated that a stay
order was made during the pendency of the appeal filed by the appellants. After the dismissal of the appeal on application filed by the .
respondents, the counsel for the appellants gave an undertaking on
April 26, 1968 to deliver possession of 10315 acres of land on or
before May 2, 1968. Possession of 10315 acres of land in pursuance
of the above undertaking was h'lnded over by the aPpCllant company
in May 1968. As the joint farming societies referred to in section 28
had not yet been formed, till such formation the said land along with
~e other land taken over from others in similar circumstances was
&:iven for cultivation to the Mahara.~htra State Farming Corporation
Limited respondent No. 5. The said Corooration was incorporated
on March 6, 1963 under the Companies Act and is owned and controUed by the State of Maharashtra respondent No. 3.
On May 17, 1968 amending Act 16 of 1968 was published. A•
a result of th~ amending Act section 28-lA was inserted in the principal ~ct. Th.is .section extended the pl'.dod for the setting up of join!
farming soc1ct1c<; contemplated by s~ction 28 of the nrincivrrl Act by
one year. It also empowered the State Government to make a scheme
for th<~ initcrim Deriorl. On June 26. J 96g the anpeJ!an's file:] petition
under :irtir.le 226 and 227 of the Constitution for r. declaration that
the pri nci !)al Act as amended hy Act 16 of 1968 was unconstitutional.
!nterim iniu:iction wa<; issu::d restraining the re,oondent• from t3k1~g any steps under the amc~ded Act on June 27, 1968. The inju~c
t10n was thereafter vacated m respect of 10315 acres of land.
The
appellants also gave an undertaking that they would not pres> their
!
8 92
SUPllEME COURT llEPORTS
[1975) 3 S.C.R.
appeals bcfor.: the Tribunal in respect of
10315
acres
of land.
Ao~ordingly, on July 22, 1968 the MaJurashtra Revenue
Tribuna1l
dismissed the appeals of the appellants in respect of 10317 acres 3'7·
gunthas of land. The appeals regarding the rest of the land measurin:g
1829 acres were kept pending in view of the injunction issued by th~
High Court.
On December 28, 1968 amending Act 33 of 1968 was published.
Section 2 of the amending Act added an cxplana·ion in section 28 as
uuder:
"Explanatio11.-For the avoidance of dou!>t, it is hereby
declared that a producer of raw material (being a person, a
joint farming society, or corporation) (including a company)
referred to in sub-section (2) shall be liab e to supply raw
material to the undertaking concerned only on that undertuling agreeing to accept such supply at the fair price."
The• amending Act also introduced section 28-lB, the material part
·Of which was as under :
"28-IB. The supply of raw material by any proclucer
·(being a person, a joint farming society or corporation)
(including a company) to the undertaking during any season
shall be regulated, and the fair prices at which such supply
is to be made to the undertaking shall be fixed, in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule."
Clause 3 of the Third Schedule provided for the formation ot a com··
mittee for fixation of the fair price.
On July 26, 1969 amending Act 37 of 1969 was published. The:
/
amending Act made changes in the Third Schedu'e and provided for
the setting up of a Board for fixation of the fair price of the raw
material supplied to an undertaking under the principal Ac ..
Amending Act 27 of 1970 was published on May J 9, 1970. The
long preamble of the Act reads as under :
"Whereas, section 28 of the Maharashtra Agricultural La:n<ls
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 inter alia provides that the
State Government shall take particular care to en~ure that
the acquisition of land held by :in industrial undertaking
(being land 1vhich was being used for the purpose of oroducing or providing raw material for the manufac'ure or production c.f any goods, articles or commoclities by :he undertaking) does not affect adversely the oroduction and su'"lnlV of
raw material from rnch land to the U'lde,taking: and that for
the puroose of so ensuring the continuance of surmly of such
raw material to the undertaking, and gerierally for th~ full
and efficient use of the hlniJ for a<rriculture anri its efficient
mana.e;em~nt, the Sta•c Government mav maintain the integrity of the area so acquired in one or more compact blocks,
A
[l
c
D
E
F
(j
H
A
B
Kl
J )
89.'l
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS I'. s. B. KAMBLE (
1a11na,
'
and may grant the land, or any part th~r~of, to a joint farming society (or a member thereof) cons1stmg of persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of that section;
And \.Vhcrcas, that section iuter alia further provide-,
that for su~h p~rioJ. as i<> necessary for thl: set :ing up or
joint farming sociclics as provided ill sub-section (2) of
that section ( b~ing not more than five years in the aggregate
from th.:. date of taking possession of tht! land), the
land
acyuircd or ~1ny part thereof should be cutivate:.l by one or
more farms run or managed by •he State, or by one or more
corporations (in.eluding a company) owned or controlled
by the State;
c
And whereas, the State Government have accordingly
D
E
constituted the Maharashtra State
Fanning
Corporation
Limited (a company formed and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956)t for managing the
farms till the setting up of the joint farming societies aforesaid;
And whereas, efforts so far made in the setting up of
such societies including the efforts made for
the
setting
up of such societies under the Maharashtra Agricultural
Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Setting up of Joint Farming
Societies Scheme, 1968, made under section 28-lA of the
said Act have not borne fruit, and the periods for the setting up of such societies are due to expire between the
months of May and October 1970;
And whereas, in the light
of experience
mentioned
aforesaid, it is not possible to say that any such joint farming societies can be set up at all;
And whereas, short extensions· of time for the setting up
I
of such joint farming societies is hampering the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture and its efficient management for the reason that the Maharashtra State Farming
Corporation is thereby prevented from undertaking any plans
or schemes for the improvement of the Land and it is finding it difficult to carry out the objects of clause (b) of subH
section (2) of section 28~
·
And whereas, most of the undertakings have also represented to the State Government that cultivation of the
land may be continued with the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation on a permanent basis for the reason that
implementation of the Joint Farming Societies Scheme aforesaid will lead to fragmentation of land and that since the
ceonomic development of land is part of agrarian reform,
the continuation of the management of the lands by the
said Corporation will subserve the purpose of agrarian reform in consonance with the object of the said Act;
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ll975l 3 s.c.R.
And whereas the State Government after carefully considering the question, in particular, in the light of what has
been set out hcr~inabove, is also of opinion that the cultivation of the land should be con,inued with the Maharashtra
State Farming Corporation on a permanent basis;
And whereas, it is necessary to amend the said Act for
the purposes aforesaid, and also for certain other purposes
hcrcinaf·.cr appearing; it is hereby ena:cted in the Twenty-first
Year of the Republic of India as follows :-"
Sections 2 and 3 of the amending Act inserted additional words in
the long title and preamble of the principal Act so as to include the
words :
"also to provide that the lands taken over from undertakings
and the integrity of which is maintained in compact blocks
for ensuring the full and efficient use of the land for agri~
culture and its efficient management through corporations
(including a company) owned or controlled by the State, be
granted to such corporations or company;"
Section 4 of the amending Act amended section 21 of the principal
Act by providing in a newly inserted su~section (5) that where pas--
session of any land delimited as surplus is handed over by the holder
in pursuance of an undertaking given by him in any court, and the
appeal filed by the holder against the declaration of that land as sur·
plus has been subsequently withdrawn or dismissed, the land, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section ( 4), shall with effect
from the date on which the possession thereof is taken by the Col·
lector, be deemed to be duly acquired by the State Government for
the purposes of the Act.
Section 7 of the amending Act deleted
section 28-1 A of th<: principal Act. Section 28-1 AA was inserted by
section 8 of the amending Act, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section
28-lAA read as under :
"28-lAA. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, not later than ninety days from
the commencement of the Maharastra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1970, grant the
surplus land taken over from the industrial undertakings and
referred to in section 28 and which is being cultivated by
one or mere c0nJ0ratk1ns (including a company) owned
and contro!lecl by the State to such corporation, or corporations, as the case mav h~. suhiect to ~uch terms and conditions, including in particular, the condition of maintaining the
interritv of the '>'Jrc1us land. in o;ie or more comnact blocks,
and· conditions which are calculated to ensure the fu11 and
continued suoolv of raw material to the undertakinr at a fair
Price.
On the (!TRnt of such surnlus land to one or-more corporations ns aforesaid, the provisions of section 28 so far as
they provide for setting up of ioint farming societies shall not
apply in relation to such surplus land.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
o·
E
F
G
H
GODAYARI SUGAR MILLS v, s. ll. KAMBLE (Klla1111a, J.)
8 95
(2) The State Government may provide that,-
(a) for the breach of any term or condition referred
to in sub-section (1), or
(b) if it considers after such inquiry as it thinks fit,
that the production and supply of raw material
to the undertaking is not maintained at the ievel
or in the manner which, with proper and efficient
manag(!mcnt it ought to be maintained, or
'c) for any other reason it is undesirable in the in-
~·
terest of the full and efficient cultivation of the
land, that the corporation, (including a company) should continue to cultivate the land,
uie grant shall, after giving three months' notice of termination thereof, and after giving the corporation reasonable opportunity of showing cause be terminated, and the land resumed. Thereafter, the State Government may itself take steps
by running or managing one or more. farms for the proper
cultivation of the land and maintenance of the production
and supply of raw material to the undertaking at a fair price.
Explanation.-For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby deciared
that a producer of raw material being the corporation (including a company) or the State
Government referred to in this section shali
be liable ~o supply raw material to the undertalcing concerned only on that undertaking
agreeing to accept such supply at the fair price."
It may be mentioned that the principal Act has also been amended
by Maharashtra Act 50 of 1973 which was published on December 22,
1973. Petitions challenging the validity of the principal Act as amended by Act 50 of 1973 are stated to be pending in the High Court.
The High Court in the case which is the subject matter of the present
appeal allowed amendment of the petition so as to include challenge
to the principal Act as amended by Act 27 of 1970. It may also be
stated that before the amendment made by Act 27 cf 1970, the principal Act was amended by various amending Acts, besides those to which
reference has already been made, but we are not concerned with those
other amending ActS.
To complete the narration we may also refer to the Maharastra
Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Grant of Surplus Lands
Taken Over from Industrial Undertaking Order, 1970 which was issued
by the Maharashtra Government on August 13, 1970 in exercise of the
powers conferred by section 28-1 AA of the Act.
Clause 2 ( c) of the
Order defines "Corporation" to mean the Maharashtra State Farming
Corporation Ltd.
Oause 3 of the Order reads as under :
"Grant of lands to Corporation.-Tbe lands specified in
column 3 of the schedule hereto (being surplus lands taken
ove: from the undertakings referred to in section 28 and specified in c_olumn 2 of that schedule) and which are being culti-
8 9(i
SUPREME COURT REPOR!S
!197 51 3 S.C.Fl.
vatcd by the CorpGration are hereby granted to the Corporation on payment of occupancy price and on the terms and
conditions specified in this Order."
Clause 4 of the Order specifies the conditions for main! .ining the integrn y llf st:rpluo lanJ, wh.k clause 5 deal<; with conditions so as to en-
:;w-e foll and continued supply of raw material to industrial unde11akings.
Claus:: 6 provides for conditions as to termination of grants.
By the judgment under appeal the High Court, as already me111ioncd, has upheld the validity of t11e impugned Act on the ground that
it is protected by articles 31 A and 3 lB of the Constitution.
Mr. Sen on behalf of th" appellants has at the outset assailed tfo .. 1
finding of the High Court in so far as it has held the impugned Ac:t
to be protected by article 31 B of the Constitution.
· The High Court while affording the protection of article 31B ()f
the Co~tion to the impugned Act has referred to the fact that tb.e
_ _prinefpal Act including section 28 was inserted in the Ninth Schedule
to ithe Constitution as item No. 34 by tlte Seventeenth Amendment to
the
Constitution.
The submission advanced on
behalf
of
the respondents that the amending Acts of 1968 and 1970 were only
ancilliary or incidental to section 28 of the principal Act and as sucl~
the amended Act was protected under article 3 lB found favour wici'i
the High Court. The High Court accordingly observed :
#
"W c, therefore, hold that section 28-t A, and section 28lAA arc only ancillary or incidental to section 28 of the
principal Act and section 21 ( 5) is also ancillary or incidental
to section 21 and, therefore, all these three amendments are
protected by article 31B of tlte Constitution."
We have given the matter our consideration and are unable to agre;:
with the above conclusion of the High Court. Article 31B reads m•
und1er:
''3 IB. Without prejudice to the generality of the provi~
sions contained in article 31A, none of the Acts and
Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the
provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to
have
become
void,
on
the
grountl
that
such
Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes
away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree
or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the
said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any
oompetent legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in
force."
·
The ·above article was inserted in the Constitution by the First Amendment. The object of this article is to give a blanket protection to the
Acts and Regulatioris specified in tlte Ninth Schedule and the orovi~ions
of those Acts and Regulations against any challenge to tl 0se Acts.
A
(
D
r
I
l·
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GODA\'.ARI SUGAR MILLS v. s. B. KAMBLE (Khanna,!.)
897'
Regulations or the provisions thereof on the ground that they are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by
Part III of the Constitution.
The result is that howsoever violative
of the fundamental Jjghts may be the provisions of an Act or Regulation,
once the Act or Regulation is specified in the Ninth Schedule it would
not be liable to be struck down on that score. This immunity against
the above challenge would be available notwithstanding any judgment,
decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary.