# • " • • SASANKA SEKHAR MAITY & ORS. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1209
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1980-05-09
- **Case number:** Writ Petition Nos. 111-l I 4, 201, 208 ., 738, 885 and 944 of 1979
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, P. N· Bhagwati, V. R. Krishna Iyer, V. D. Tulzapurkar, A. P. Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sasanka-sekhar-maity-ors-etc-v-union-of-india-ors-7958
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Fixation of ceiling of agricultural holdings-Whether the provisions of Chapter
JIB of the West Bengal Land &forms Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956) inserted by
the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act TJI of
1971) and replaced by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment)
Act,
1972 (Act XII of 1972) with retrospective effect from February 15, 1971 is violative of the second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution.
In furtherance of the Direc(ive Principles enshrined in Article 39(b), agrarian reforn1 wa~ undertaken in the State of West Bengal in two stages. The -first
was the stage of abolition of the zamindari system. The West Bengal Estates
Acquisition Act, 1953 (Act I of !954)
which received the assent of the
President on ·February 12, 1954 has been placed in the Ninth Schedule as
item No. 59, woas an Act to provide for the acquisition of estates of
rights of intefmediaries
therein
and
of certain
rights of
raiyats and
under-raiyats.
By vfrtue of notification under s. 4 issued on .f\pril 14, 1955
declaring April 15., 1955 to be the date of vesting the estates and the rights
of intermediaries therein, vested in the State free from all encumbrances
from that date·.
After the· extinction of the feudal system of zamindari, the
big landlords became interni.ediaries, but by virtue of s. 6(1)(a), {cl, (dl,
(e) and (f), they were entitled to retain land comprised in homesteads, nonagricultural land in their khas possession not exceeding 15 acres, agricultural
lands in their khas possession not exceeding 25 acres, tank fisheries and land
comprised in tea gardens or orchards or land used
for the
purpose of
livestock breeding, poultry farming or dairy.
Under s. 6(2) they became
tenants of the State. The stage was thus set for the imposition of the ceiling
on agricultural holdings.
The West Bengal Land Reform.< Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956) caine into
force on March 31, 1956.
The object and purpose of the Al:! as retlected in
the preamble was to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent on the
vesting of all estates and of ce.rtain rights therein in the State. This v1as followed by notification issued by the State Government under s. 49 of the West
Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 on April 9, 1956. As a result of the
notification under s. 49 the petitioners, who were raiyats, were deemed to be
intermediaries and the lands owned and possessed by them as estates and all
the lands and the petitioner's rights in such lands vested in the State with
effect from April 10, 1956. But the petitioner as intermediaries were permitted to retain the lands as provided for in s. 6 (1).
This state of affairs continued till February 12, 1971 when the West Bengal
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act ill of 1971) caine
into force. This was replaced in due coorsb, by the West Bengal Land Reforms
(Amendment) Ac~ 1972 (Act XII of 1972) with retrospective effect from
February 12, 1971. These Acts brought about a drastic change by introducing
chapter IIB for the imposition of a ceiling an agricultural holdingi;.
As a
necessary consequence the Acts deleted s. 4(3) as "'ell as s. 6.
As a
18-610 SCT/80
1209
A
B
c
D
E
\•
F
G
B
' '
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 3 S.C.R.
result of the deletion of s. 4(3), the right of retention of raiyats of agricultural lands to the extent of 25 acres was taken away and the deletion of
s. 6(2) relieved the State of thi!· obligation to pay n1arket vaJue for acquisition
of the surplus land.
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956) and the West
Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act XII of 1972), which
introduced Chapter' IIB therein with retrospective effect fro111 February 12,
1971, have both been placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution
(Thirtyfourth Amendment) Act, 1974 being items 60 and 81 thereof.
They
have thus the immunity of Article 3 IB besides being fully protected under
Articles 31A and 31C.
The petitioners being aggrieved by these

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 95,561. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

.. ..
•
"
•
•
SASANKA SEKHAR MAITY & ORS. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
May 9, 1980
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ., P. N· BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER,
V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN; JJ.]
Fixation of ceiling of agricultural holdings-Whether the provisions of Chapter
JIB of the West Bengal Land &forms Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956) inserted by
the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act TJI of
1971) and replaced by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment)
Act,
1972 (Act XII of 1972) with retrospective effect from February 15, 1971 is violative of the second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution.
In furtherance of the Direc(ive Principles enshrined in Article 39(b), agrarian reforn1 wa~ undertaken in the State of West Bengal in two stages. The -first
was the stage of abolition of the zamindari system. The West Bengal Estates
Acquisition Act, 1953 (Act I of !954)
which received the assent of the
President on ·February 12, 1954 has been placed in the Ninth Schedule as
item No. 59, woas an Act to provide for the acquisition of estates of
rights of intefmediaries
therein
and
of certain
rights of
raiyats and
under-raiyats.
By vfrtue of notification under s. 4 issued on .f\pril 14, 1955
declaring April 15., 1955 to be the date of vesting the estates and the rights
of intermediaries therein, vested in the State free from all encumbrances
from that date·.
After the· extinction of the feudal system of zamindari, the
big landlords became interni.ediaries, but by virtue of s. 6(1)(a), {cl, (dl,
(e) and (f), they were entitled to retain land comprised in homesteads, nonagricultural land in their khas possession not exceeding 15 acres, agricultural
lands in their khas possession not exceeding 25 acres, tank fisheries and land
comprised in tea gardens or orchards or land used
for the
purpose of
livestock breeding, poultry farming or dairy.
Under s. 6(2) they became
tenants of the State. The stage was thus set for the imposition of the ceiling
on agricultural holdings.
The West Bengal Land Reform.< Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956) caine into
force on March 31, 1956.
The object and purpose of the Al:! as retlected in
the preamble was to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent on the
vesting of all estates and of ce.rtain rights therein in the State. This v1as followed by notification issued by the State Government under s. 49 of the West
Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 on April 9, 1956. As a result of the
notification under s. 49 the petitioners, who were raiyats, were deemed to be
intermediaries and the lands owned and possessed by them as estates and all
the lands and the petitioner's rights in such lands vested in the State with
effect from April 10, 1956. But the petitioner as intermediaries were permitted to retain the lands as provided for in s. 6 (1).
This state of affairs continued till February 12, 1971 when the West Bengal
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act ill of 1971) caine
into force. This was replaced in due coorsb, by the West Bengal Land Reforms
(Amendment) Ac~ 1972 (Act XII of 1972) with retrospective effect from
February 12, 1971. These Acts brought about a drastic change by introducing
chapter IIB for the imposition of a ceiling an agricultural holdingi;.
As a
necessary consequence the Acts deleted s. 4(3) as "'ell as s. 6.
As a
18-610 SCT/80
1209
A
B
c
D
E
\•
F
G
B
' '
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 3 S.C.R.
result of the deletion of s. 4(3), the right of retention of raiyats of agricultural lands to the extent of 25 acres was taken away and the deletion of
s. 6(2) relieved the State of thi!· obligation to pay n1arket vaJue for acquisition
of the surplus land.
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956) and the West
Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act XII of 1972), which
introduced Chapter' IIB therein with retrospective effect fro111 February 12,
1971, have both been placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution
(Thirtyfourth Amendment) Act, 1974 being items 60 and 81 thereof.
They
have thus the immunity of Article 3 IB besides being fully protected under
Articles 31A and 31C.
The petitioners being aggrieved by these .agrarian reform challenged in these
writ petitions the validity of definition of the term 'family' contained ins. 14K(c), JI.
the fixation of ceiling limits of a raiyat under s. 14M(l), the provision for ,.
lands held, by the members of a family being clubbed under s. 14M(2) the
avoidaru:e of transfers by s. 14P, the fixation of a ceiling limit on orchards
under s. 140(2), the vesting of surplus land in the.State under s. 14S(l), the
penal consequences for failure to file a return provided for in s. 14T( 4). the
impdsition of a restriction on transfers under s. 14U and the absence of a
provision for pa)rment of compensation for acquisition of homestead under
s. 14V.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
• •
HELD: (!) Both Articles 31A and 31B were introduced by the Constitution
(First Amendment Act) 19'57 with retrospetive effect with a view to validate
zamindari abolition Acts and conferred immunity from challenge in Courts.
Article 3 lA was designed to facilitate agrarian reform as well as social control
of the means of production. Article 3 IA reflects the intention of the Govern~
ment to immunise state legislations relating to imposition of ceiling on
agri~
cultural holdings from the usual compensation required or other requirements
of the, fundamental rights guaranteed under Part Ill which are most likely to
~l•fJ!l
1!~-·:··
be invoked-Articles 14, 19 and 31. [1242 B-1223 C-D, F-H]
'
,.
The· West Bengal Land Reform5 Act is a piece of social legiSlation for
agrarian reform. The object of the legislation is to break up· the concentration
of ownership and control of the materia1 resources of the com.Inunity and to
so distribute the same as best to subserve the common good, as enjoined by
i\rticle 39(b) of the Constitution.
Having regard to the quantity of land
available in the State of West Bengal, which has the next highest per capita
density in the whole of the country, the ceiling limits, is reasonable and fair.
For equitable distribution of the natural resources it was essential to design
the Act as it is so that the surplus land is available for distn"bution to the
landless pcasantiy. The Act nukes available to each person of the community
living below the poverty line, to some extent the minimum means of subsistence.
In order, therefore, to reconcile the fundamental rights of the community as a whole with the individual rights of the more fortunate section of
the community, it was fundamentally necessary to make the impugned
leizislation to secure to a certain extent the rights of that part of the community which is denied its legitimate share in the means of livelihood. [1224 F-H,
1225 Al
I
,,\!\
• •
,\
S. SEKHARMAITY v. UNION
1211
(2) The broad objectivity of any iegislation relating to agrarian reform
"A
.are D'1;3terially four, namely, ( i) to n1aximise the agricultural output and pro-
.ductivity, (ii)
a, fair and equitable distribution of agricultural income,
(iii) increase in employment opportunities and (iv) a social or ethical order.,
Though the abolition of zamindari system in the State of West Bengal was
.an important step forward the feudal structure remained so far as the peasants
were. concerned.
These objectives have been achieved through progressive
legislation. [1225 B·CJ
·
B
(3) The ceiling on agricultural holdings once fixed cannot be static un·
"1terable for all times. The expression "any law for the time being in force",
obviously refera to t!.e law imposing a ceiling.
Here, it is the West Bengal
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act JI! of ·1971) and
now the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Act Xll of
1972 l which introduced Chapter IIB imposing a new ceiling . on agricultural
holdings of raiyats. That is the law for the time being in. force, and no land
is being acquired by the State under s. 14L within the ceiling limits .prescribed
therein. [1226 A·CJ
Further the second proviso to Art. 31A(l) to the "ceiling limit applicable
to him", "1lich evidently refers to the law in question and not the earlier law~
c
!hat is s. 6(1) of the West Bengal &tates Acquisition Act, 1953. Both
D
s. 4(3) and s. 6(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 stood deleted
'by the West Bengal Land Refo!UJS (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act
Ill of 1971) and thereafter by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment)
Act, 1972 with retrospective effect from February 12, 1971. [1226 C-DJ
The ceiling limit introduced by s. 14M of the impugned Act which came
into force on February 15, 1971, is the ceiling limit "under the law for the
time being in force" within the meaning of the second proviso to Art. 31A(l).
That being so, the provisions of Chapter JIB have the constitutional immunity
of Art. 31A and cannot· be challenged on the grOund that they are inconsistent
with, take away or abridge the fundamentaJ rights ~aranteed by Articles 14·,
19(1)(f) or 31(2). Even if it were not so, they would be under the protective
·umbrella of Art. 3!B. Indubitably, the provisions of Chapter IlB are a law
related to agrarian reform and thus protected. The challenge to the validity
of the Constitution (Twentyninth Amendment) Act waS allowed to be raised
as an additional ground in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the court
by majority of 7 : 6 upheld the validity of the twentyninth amendment.
[1227
E-G, 1228 F·G]
-
Kunjukutty v. State of Kera/a, [1973] 1 S.CR. 326 & 341, Malankara Rubber
and Products Co. v. Stqte of Kera/a, [1973] I SCR 399 followed.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,
[1973] Supp. SCR
1 referred
to.
( 4) When Art. 3 IB was introduced In the Constitution by the Constitution
(Fil1!t A~endment) Acly 1?51, it valida~ rctr~!'°°tively 1~ Acts spec~ed
in the Nmth Schedule, which, but for this pr<>vJSion, were hable !<> be =-
pugned under Art. 13 (2).
Article 3 IB conte;red ~stitutional .in1munity to
such lam (all being enactments of State Legislatures) and Parliament alone
eould have done so by inserting the said Article in the Constitution in exercise of
its constituent power under Art. 368. In substan~ and reality it was cons6tu·
E
F
G
R
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980) 3 S.C.Rtional device employed to protect State laws from becoming void under Art.
13(2). The language in Art. 31B is virtually lifted from Arts. 13(1) and (2)
while article 13(2) invalidates legislation, which takes away or abridges tire rights
confen·ed by Part III, Art. 3 lB extends 'protective umbrella" to such legislation.-
if it is included in Ninth Scheduele and, therefor'e, the Court will have no poW'er
w go into the constitutionality of the enactments as' included in the
Ninth
:schedule except on the ground of want of legislative competence. [1229 C-F]
(5) The definition of 'family' as contained ins. 14K(c) of the Act is
more realistic than the definitions of this term in similar laws for imposition of
ceiling on agricultural holding,. enacted in other States. The definition is much
wider, and far more generous and humane because it takes into consideration.
the existence of a widowed and divorced
daughter, v.lhich is absent in other
Acts. 1he meaning given by Explanation l to an adult unmarried person is an
inclusive one and it includes a daughter who has been divorced.
This necessarily
also includes a widowed daughter.
By the proviso added lo Explanation It
where such widowed daughter is the guardian o~ any minor son or unruarried
daughter, or both, she, together with such minor son or unmarried daughter.
or both, shall be det:u1ed to be a ·separate family.
She, therefore, is treated
to be a raiyat in her own right in relation to her family and her holding is not
clubbed with that of her father under s. 1411(2).
·The benefit provided to
a divorced daughter would, obviously, also extend to a
widowed
dau'iI1ter.
E..icplanation 11 deals with the spouse as in relation to a raiyat who is a woman,
reference in Gause (c) to wife's son or daughter shall be construed as reference to the
husband'~ son or daughter, respectively of such wo1nan.
The
Legislature on a correct perspective has enlarged the definition of a family
to the maximum possible exten't, :ind provides for a<> n1any as nine members.
[1230 H, 1231 A-C]
The marginal cases wherein normally in the fan1ily of a raiyat he has his
parents io maintain would be very few. Normally, the father of a raiyat would
have his separate holding and would be entitled to a separate ceiling
area of his own determined under s. 14M. The Legislature had to draw
a·
line· somewhere.
By s. 14lvl(2) (b) it provided for augn1enting of the holding
of a raiyat to the e~tent of 7 .0 standard hectares by taking into account five
plus four, that is, nine members. [1231 C-E]
(6) The creation of an artificial concept of family and ni.aking provIS1on
for the clubbing together of land holding of each member of the family are f
not violative of the second proviso to Art. 31A(l), an~ even if they were,
protected hy Art. 31B. This
had necessarily to be done for achieving_
·the purpose and object of the legislation, that is, imposition of a cciling on
agricultural holding.
The provisions of Chapter IIB in the Act are a law for
imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings of raiyats and are not a_ law for
enlargement of such holdings, that is, these put a limit on the maximum limit
of a holding of a raiyat.. The Act adopts the individual as the unit and not
the family and allows for augmentation of his ·holding depending upon the
normal concept of a family.
[1231 B-GJ
(7) Thete is no question of conferral of any new rights of minor son or
ttril:oorrie<f dalighter, as they' would be included in the father's famHy,. whO'
• •
S. SEKHARMAITY v. UNION
1213
.rould get a much larger ceiling of 5 to 7 standard hectares, depending upon the
· number of children that he has.
Nothing prevents a minor son or the unmarried daughter of a raiyat, like his parents, from acquiring property of their
~ own subsequently by inheritance or transfer. It is difficult to envisage a family
'
.consisting of 18 members in present times.
Nor can the Legislature be ex-
.P<Cted to provide for all contingencies because according to s. 14M(b) the
.raiyat would be entitled to retain no more than 7 standard hectares, that is, 5
standard hectares for his family up to 5 members and 5.50 standard hectares
per head for four other members. The extent of the holdings on which ceil-
•
ing is fixed varies deplending upon whether it is an irrigated area or aiy other
area.
There is no arbitrariness arid indeed there is no substantial decrease in
'1he limit. One standard hectare is equivalent to 2.47 acres. The ceiling limits,
therefore,
work out to 6.18 acres in the case of. an individual, and
12.35
1o 17.29 acres of irrigated land, in the case.of a family, which, in the Oangetic
. ~
plains of West Bengal, is n. ot small by any standard.
In other areas, the
,.! -ceiling limit varies from 8.64 to 24.2 acres.
According to agro-ewnomists, an
-economic holding is of 5 to 7 acres. [1232 A-C, E-F, 1233 0-H, 1234 A-BJ
If is not possible to lay down a ceiling standard or prescnDe one limit in
terms of fixed acreage for general application throughout the coontry. The
productivity of land is not the same in all areas, due allowance has to be made
for varying local conditions.
As per the suggestions made by the four FiveYear Plans. and the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee, the ceiling
limits were mainly prescribed.
Some States put a ceiling limit on the
bolding of an individual owner while the othersimposed a ceiling on
family holding. In the States where a ceiling was imposed on individual
holding there was greater scope for mala fide
transfers
than where
the
ceiling was iDlpO!led on the aggregate area held by all the members of
the family. In the latter case there was. no inducemCnt to eifect transfers bet-
-ween the mentbers of the family as their share had already been given due
'
recognition. [1234 9'E)
(8) The fixation of a. back date is a usual legislative device to prevent
avoidance of change brought about by law. The date mentioned in s. 14 does
l>ear a reasonable nexm with th• obje<t or purpose of the legislation. The West
Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act. 1971 while inserting Chapter II B
eaa<tcd s. t•P pr6"iding that in detemrining the ceiling area of a raiyat any
"transfer elleclbl by sale, gilt or otherwise or by a partition by him after
August 7, 1969 and before February 8, 1971, i.e.,.th• daie of pnblicalion of
the Act in the official Gazette shall not 1'e taken into aCC-OUDt and the land shall
be deemed to form part of the holding of the raiyat.
By a legal fiction, such
ttBmofcrs W«e pres9*teG! to be ma/a fide as they were calcnlated to defeat the
-ceiling law. [1235 J>.F1
B
c
D
E
F
G
The w .. t Belli31 I.end Reforms (Second Amendment) Bill, 1%9 was published in the offl•ial Gazette oo that date. Though the amendmcllt primarily
related to re-assessmelll of revenue, the concept of ''family" was first sought to
be ifttroduced in the West Bengal Land. RefonD$ Act by that amendment. The
'kwd--holders, therefore, had a f°""-warning that the concept of family may come
inlo play in tho detemililation of ceiling area of lalld. Prior to the said amend·
ment, the proposed . legislation ceiling adopted individual as a unit and not the
R
family. Unless a date-line is' fixed in the mat tor of oeiling or similar agrarian
nforms, the very pt1!JIOIC of tht legislation would be fruslntod. The soope and
B
c
1214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980j 3 S.C.R.
effect of s. 14P are that all agriculture lands transferred after August 7, 1969
shall be taken into account in computing the ceiling of the raiyat. The effect
\Vas that the ceiling virtually imposed treating the family as the unit in s. 14M
(2) was given a retrospective effect by s. 14P. with effect from August 7, 1969.
[1235 G-H, 1236 A-BJ
(9) Section 14U provides that except where he is permitted, in writing, by
the Revenue Officer so to do, a raiyat owning land in excess of the ceiling area
applicable to him under s. 14M, shall not, after the publication of the Act in
the official Gazette, i.e., February 8, 1971, transfer, by sale, gift or otherwise
or make any partition of any land owned by him or any part thereof until the
excess land which is to vest in the State under s. 14S, has been determined and
taken possession of by or on behal£ of the St.re. Such provisions are to be
found in all the Acts passed by different States relating to imposition of ceilins
on agricultural land and indeed they are essential for implementing the scheme
of the Act. [1236 B-DJ
In acutal implementation, the prov1s1on of these Acts \Vere circun1vented to
a large extent by the making of fraudulent transfers. Transfers .of rights in
land could be effected by one of several ways such as sale, mortgage. gift and
exchange. The Act by s. 14P provides that transfers effected before the dale of
D
publication of the Act and after August 7, 1969 shall I1ot be taken into consideration. The legislature fixed August 7. 1969 as the date from w\ich all such
transfers or partitions shall be deemed to have been. effected with the intention
of defeating the laiw.
Such transfers were presumed to be ma/a fide as they
had taken place in anticipation of the enactment and, therefore, liable to
be
ignored. As the ceiling was fixed for each individual raiyat and not the family,.
as a unit, there was practica.lly noi limit to, the amount Of land that could be held
• •
i •
'·
E
by a family in this ,Nay, and therefore, the legislature had to insert~- 141\.1(2)
~
for their shares to be clubbed tog,ther. There \Vere plenty of reasons to beF
G
H
lieve that splitting of big holdings betweell members of the family had taken
place on considerable scale in anticipation of the legislation. [1236 D-01
(10) There is no absolute bar under section 14U against transfers till
the
determination of the ceiling area under s. 14M.
As regards s. 14U the fundamental right to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed under Art.
19( 1) (f) was subject to the right of the Sta.te to impose reasonable restrictions
under Art. 19(6). The legislature was fu1ly competent to lay down the maximuin limit on an agricultural. holding and make ancillary provisions to n1ake the f
law effective by avoidance of transfers. These provisions contained in s. 14P
and s. 14U a.re without which the 'vhole object of enacting Chapter II B for
the imposition of a ceiling on agricultural holdings would hav'e been completely
frustrated. [1236 G-H. 1237 A-Bl
( 11) The, expression "agricultural land'" js wide enough to include an orchard.
Th~refore an orchard as defined in s. 140(2) does not come within the
definition of land in s. 2(7).
Any contrary construction would
imply
that
there would be no ceiling on agrieultural hold!ings in larg'e tracts of land in thedistrict of Malda which is famous for its mango orchards. Tue legislature by
enacting s. 140 (2) treats the land comprised in orchards as falling within the
purview of s. 14M, but having rega.rd to the fact that there is a sufficient cluster of fruit-bearing trees in an orchard, which precludes the utilisation of the
land comprised therCin or sub~tantial portion thereof for effective cultivation,.
t
.. ;._
• ..
• •
'
S. SBKHARMAITY V. UNION
1215
allows an additional . area of 2 standard hectares -for _each raiyat.
There
is
A
nothing wrong in the provision contained in s. 140(2). On the contrary, it is
a very reasonable provision. [1237 G-H, 1238 A-CJ
(12) Section 14V provides that compensation for vesting of any· land in the
State under the provisions of Chapter IIB shall be determined on· the principles
and in the manner as specified in Chapter III of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The absence ,of a provision for payment of compensation in
respect of orchards in Chapter Ill of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act,
1953 does not mean that no compensation is to. be determined or is not payable
under s. 14V.
In such a case, the general Provisions relating to payment
-of
cOmpensation in respect 'of acquisition of land will apply. The principle on
which, and the manner in which, compensation is to be determined aJ\d given
are ~et out in ss. 16 and 17. · Section 16 provides for computation the net an·
nual income of land. Section 17 provides that the amount of compensation shall
be a multiple of the net annual income, the multiple depending upon the extent of income. The multiple ranges from two to twenty times. The compensation has to be calculated according to the graded scale in the table given iI1i
s. 17. [1238 E, H, 1239 A-BJ
where the leg'islature has 13.id down the principles for computation, the
amount of compenSation is not justiciable after the Fourth Amendment. It ,c3.nnot be asserted that compensation payable for acquisition of land comprised ·in
orchards jn e:xcess of the ceiling limit in s. 140(2), according to the provisions
of s. 14V is illusory. Where the law provides for payment of compensation as
much as twenty times the annual income, it is virtually the capitalised value.
The- petitioners who own orchards would, therefore, get much more iis the income. derived by them would be greater than the raiyats holding land in excess
of the ceiling limit in s. 14M(2). [1239 B-DJ
(13) The definition of 'land_' as contained ins. 2(7) is an inclusive one and it
means agriculfural land other than land comprised in a tea-garden and includes
homestead but does not include tank. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter
IIB shall apply ":'here the homestead is included in ·the record of rights as forming part of an agricultural holding.
Agricultnral holding or a · raiyat includes
bis homestead and the raiyat can_ retain land including
homestead
under
s. 14M(l) up to 7 standard hectares in.irrigated area and· 8.9 standard hectares
in unirrigated areas.
A raiya.t \VOuld be entitled to get compensation under
s. 14B. according" to the principles specified in Chapter III of the West Bengal
Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. [1239 D-FJ
(14) Raiyats are entitled to retain the homestead, Normally raiyats wou1d not
be affected as they would be allowed to retain their homesteads as falling within
the ceiling limits allowed under s. 14M. [1239 G-HJ
Provisions have been made ins. 16(l)(a) of the Estates Acquisition Act and
also in Rule 15(b) and (d) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954
to provide the procedure for arriving at the comp_ensation for any; homestead
if such homestead falls wjthin the category of agricultural land, i.e., where it is
so entered in the record of rights as part of agricultural holding of a raiyat If
a homestead is entered in the record of rights as non-agricultural land or as a
B
c
D
E
-~q
part of a non-agricultural holding, it does not come within the purview of the
~
Act, and, therefore, the question of vesting of s.uch homestead does not arise.
A raiyat is within his rights IQ retain land upto the <:oiling liJ:nit applicable to
'•
1216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1980] 3 S.C.R.
A
hi1n in accordance with s. 14M and s. 14T. Thus a raiyat is at liberty to retain
his homestead and not to allow it to be vested in or acquired by the State under
the Act.
It is expected that normally raiyats would retain th~ir homesteads
and, therefore, the question of ousting them from their homesteads dOes not
arise at all. In other cases, where raiyats willingly give up their homestead to
be vested in the State, i.e., to be acquired by the State, without desiring to retain the same within the ceiling area applicable to him, the question of payB
ment of compensation will a.rise and in such cases, compensation would
be
computed in accordance withs. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Estates Acquisition Act read
with Ruic !5(b) and (d) of the Estates Acquisition' Rules. (1240 A, D, E, F-H]
D
E
( 15) The power of eminent domain 'vhich is inherent in
every sovereign
State, must be capable of being exercised against every property held by
any
person in the State.
Being a fundamental attribute of sovereignty of State one
cannot imagine that the framers of the Constitution intended to divest the State
of that attribute by implication in the case of property owned by a priv.ate trust.
Just as the property of a private trust is hekl subject to a. law imposing a tax
upon it, so also is that property subject to the eminent domain of the State.
(1241 C-D]
All that s. 14M(5) provides is that land owned by a trust of endowment
other than of a public nature, shaH be deemed to be land owned by the bene~
ficiary of the· trust or endowment, and each such beneficiary shall be deen1ed
to be a raiyat under the Act to the extent of the share of his benefieial intere~!
in the said trust or endowment. What is of essence is the capacity i.n which the
land is hekt. If a raiyat is a beneficiary of a pri:va.te trust his beneficial interest
consists
in the
offerings or income.
The
provision in effect presC>iloes lhal the land should be clubbed foo- the computa.tioo of the ceiling a<ea
under s. 14M(l). The imposition of suoh a ceiling woold no doubt reduce
the holding of the trust but the Government has the power under s. 140(3) to
increase the ceiling area in certain cases. Where the Government is satisfied
that a corporation- or institution established exclusively for a charitable or
relfgious pttl]X)Se· or bot1i., for which a ceiling limit is prescribed under s. 140( 1)
or a person holding any land in, trust or in pursuance of any other endowment.
creating a legal obligation exchlsively for a purpose which charitable or religious, or both, requires land, as distinct from the income of such land, for the
clue perfOmtance of its obligation, it may having r~gard to all the circumstances
of the case, increase the ceiling area for such corporation or institutiOR or person to such extent as it may deem fit. The legislature has, threfore, provided
adequate safeguards under s. 140(3) to soften the rigour of the Act in relation
to 1eligious and charitable trusts. (1241 E·H, 1242 A}
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 111-l I 4, 201, 208
., 738, 885 and 944 of 1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution).
'
;
• •
•
•
,
B. K. Datta and S. s. Majumdar and Mrs. Lakshmi Arvind for
._i
the Petitioi:iern in WP Nos. 111-114 & 208.
D. P. Mukhe•jee and A. K. Ganguli for the Petitioners in WP
H
No. 944.
M. N. Plwdke, Am/au Ghosh and Mir Mohanuned Asfuz for the
Petitioners in WP 738:
.
• ..
s. SEKHARMAITY v. UNION .(Sen,!.)
1217
M. N. Phadke, P. K. Sahana and Sukumar Ghosh for the PetiA
tioners in WP 885.
A
L. N. Sinha, Att. Gen). S. N. Kacker, Govind Mukhoty and Rathin
IJas for the Appearing Respondents .
P. K. Pillai· for the applicant intervener in WP 208 .
The Jufigment of the Court was delivered by
SEN J.
In this batch of writ petitions, the main question that
falls for determination, is whether the provisions of Chapter llB of
the West Bengal Land Reforms Ae,1, 1955 (Act X of 1956) inserted
by the West Bengal Land Reforms '(Amendment) Art, 1971 ( Presi-
-Oent's Act III <lf 1971), and replaced by the West Bengal Land
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act XII of 1972) with retrosL
pective effect from February 15, 1971, which provide for a fixation
-0f ceiling on agricultural holdings and for matters ancillary thereto,
are violative of the second proviso to Art. 31A (1.) of the Constitution.
The challenge in particular is to the validity of the definition of
-the term 'family' coniaiaed in s. 14 K ( c) , the fixation of ceiling limits
of a iaiyat under s. 14M(l), the provision for lands held by the
~mbers of a family being cl\lbbed under s. 14M(2), the avoidance
e>f transfers. by s. 14 P, t&e fixation of a ceiling limit oo orchards
·ul!liler s. 140 ( 2) , the vesting of surplus land in the State under s.
l4S(l), the penal consequences f-Or failure to file a
return pro-
·vided for in s. 14T( 4), the imposition of a restriction on transfers
under s. 14U and the abseilce of a provision for payment of compellSlltion for acquisition of homestead under S· 14V.
It would be convenient t-0 refer, in the first place, to the legislative
·changes brought about in the State of West Bengal in furtherance of
~ the Directive Principles enshrined i'n Art. 39 (b). Agriuian reform
was ondl:rtalren in two stages. The first was the stage of abolition
·Of the zamindari system. The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act,
1953 (Act I of 1954) which received the assent of the P~esident on
February 12,
1954,
and has been placed in the Ninth Schedule
as item No. 59, was an Act to provide for the acquisition of estates, '
of rights of intermediaries therein and of certain rights of raiyats and
under-raiyats.
By virtue of notification under s. 4 issued on· April
14, 1955 declaring April 15, 1955 to be the date of
~ting, the
.estates and the rights of intermediaries therein, vested in the State
-free from all encumbrances from that' date.
Section 5 provided that
on and from the date of vei;ting, the estates and the rights of intermediaries in the estates shall vest in the State free from all encumB
c
F
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 3 s.c.R.
brances.
Section 6 (1) provided that, notwithstanding anything contained i'n ss. 4 and 5, an intermediary shall, subject to certain conditions, be entitled to retain (a) land comprised .in homesteads, .(c)
non-agricultural land in his khas possession not exceeding 15 acr~
in area, and excluding any land retained under cl. (a), (d) agricul·
tural land in his khas possession not exceeding twenty-five acres
in area, as may be chosen by him, ( e) tank fisheries, and (f) land
comprised in tea gardens or orchards or land used for the pmpose
of livestock breeding, poultry farming or dairy etc. Sub-section ( 2)
thereof provided that, an intermediary who was entitled to
retain
posseS5ion of any land under sub·s. ( 1), shall be deemed to hold
such land directly under the State from the date of vesting
as a tenant.
Chapter YI of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953,
which
provided for
acquisition of interest of raiyats and Ullderraiyats, ·however, did not come into force on the publication of the'
notification under s. 4 for the acquisition of estates and the right&
of the intermediaries therein with effect from April 15, 1955. That
' was' because s. 49 provided that this Chapter was to come into force·,
on such date as the Government may by notificatio_n appoint. .BY
s. 52 it was provided that on the issue of a notification under s. 49,
the provisions of Chapters ll, III, V and VII were to apply,
with.
such modification as may be necessary, mutatis mutandis to raiyats
and under-raiyats as if such raiyats and
under-raiyats were inter·
mediaries and land held by them were estates.
After the extinction
of the feudal system of zamindari, the big landlords became intermediaries, but by vjrtue of s. 6(1)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), they
were entitled to retain land comprised in
homesteads,
non-agncultural land in their khas possession not exceeding 15, acres, agricultural lands in their khas possession not exceeding 25 acres,
tank
fisheries and land comprised in tea gardens or orchards or land nsed
for the purpose of livestock breeding, poultry farming
or dairy.
Under s. 6(2), they became tenants of the State. The stage was thus
set for the imposition of
a ceiling
oil
agricutural holdings.
The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
(Act X of 1956)
came into force on March 31, 195 6. The object ana purpose of
the Act, as reflected in the preamble, was to reform the law relating
to land tenure consequent on the vesting of all estates and of certain rights therein in the State. This was followed by a Notificatioru
issued by the State Government under s. 49 of the West
Bengal
Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 on April 9, 1956.
As a result of thenotification s. 49, the petitioners who are raiyats, were deemed to·
• •
,.
•
•
4
.\
s. SEKHARMAITY v. UNION (Sen, /.)
1219
be 'intermediaries' and the lands owned and possessed by them as
A
estates, and all the lands and the petitioners' rights in such lands
vested in the State with effect from April 10, 1956. But the petitioners as intermediaries were permitted to retain the lands as provided for ins. 6(1) .
This state of affairs continued ti!; February 12, 1971) when the
West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's
Act III of 1971) came into force.
This was replaced in due course,
by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act
XII of 1972) with retrospective effect from February
12, 1971.
These Acts brought about a drastic change by introducing Chapter
II B for ihe imposition of a ceiling on agriculttiral holdinlli_·
As a
necessary consequence the Acts deleted s. 4(3) as well as ~ 6.
As
a result of the deletion of s. 4(3), the right of retention of raiyats
of agricultural lands to the extent of 25 acres was taken away and
the deletion of s. 6(2) relieved the State of the obligation to pay
market value for acquisition of the surplus land.
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Act X of 1956)· and
·the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act XII
B
c
D
of 1972), which introduced Chapter XIB therein with retrospective
effect from February 12, 1971, have both been placed in the Ninth
Schedule by the Constitution (Thirtyfourth Amendment) Act, 1974
being items 60 and 81 thereof.
They have thus the
immunity of
E
Art. 31B, be.ides being· full protected under Arts. 31A and 31C. ·
Learned counsel for the petition_ers, however, seeks to achieve
a break-through in three ways.
In the first place, he contends that
Art: 31A is not at~racted because of the breach of the second proviso to Art 31A(1) inasmuch as Chapter IIB provides for acquisition of land within the ceiling limits applicable to the petitioners
without making provision for payment of compensation at the market value.
In the second place, he argues i'n the alternative, that the
Parliament cannot in exercise of its constituent power under Art.
368 validate a State law.
Thirdly; he tries to get over Arts. 31 B
and 31 C on the ground that in so far as the provisions of Chapter
IIB are inconsistent with or take away or abridge the fundamehtal
right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, they affect the 'basic
structure' of the Constitution.
Even if the right to property does
not from a basic structure of the Constitution, he contends that Chapter
IIB is bad as it offends Arts. 14 and 31.
·
It is urged that the lowering of the ceiling area of agricultural
holdings by s. 14M from 25 acres, which the petitio'ners as raiyats
F
G
B
A
.D
B
1220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 3 S.C.R.
were entitled to retain under s. 4(3) of the Act, since deleted by
the President's Act 3 of 1971 and Act 12 of 1972, to seven standard
hectares, in the case of a raiyat having a family consisting of more
than five members infringes Arts. 14, 19(1) (f) and 31(2) of the
constitution.
The submission is that such lowering of the ceiling
area, in the case of a raiyat, is tantamount to acquisition of land,
within the ceiling limits applicable to him and, therefore, ·s. 14V of
the· Act which provides for payment of compensation according to
the provisions contained in Chapter III of the West Bengal Estates
Acquisition Act, 1953, and not for payment of compensation at a rate
equivalent to the market value thereof, offends against the second
proviso to Art. 31A(l).
I
Various other questions are also raised viz., the artificial definition of family contained in s. 14K(c) beam no reasonable
nexus
with the traditio'nal concept of a family in West Bengal.
The acquisition of orchards as defined ins. 14K(e), for which a ceiling area
is fixed at 2.0 standard hectares bys. 140(2) is ultra vires the State
Legislature 'as orchards cannot be treated as land as defined in s.
2(7). The taking away of homesteads, which the petitioners were
entitled to retain under s. 6( 1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act without making a·ny provision for payment of market value
thereof deprives them of property without payment of compensation
in violation of Art. 31 ( 2). The provisions of s. 14P which
provide
that in determining the ceiling area any transfer effected by sale, gift
or otherwise or by a partition by a raiyat after August 7, 1969, but
before !he date of publication in the Official Gazette of President's
Act 3 of 1971, i.e., February 8, 1971 shall be taken into account as
if such 1aoo had not been tran5ferred or partitioned, as the case may
be, in effect, virtually amounts to taking away of land within
the
ceiling area prescribed for him by s. 14M and is thus bad:
It is further urged that the restriction on transfer of land by a
raiyaJ imposed by s. 14U is an, unreasonable restriction and, therefore, offends· against Art. 19(l)(f). The validity of s, 14(5) by
which property belonging to a private trust 9r endowment, is treated
to be property belonging to the beneficiaries, i.e., shebaits, and each
such shcbait to be a raiyat to the extent of the share of his benefi.cial
interest in the said trust or endowment, is assailed on the ground
that
it _ abridges the fundamental
rights
guaranteed
by Art.
26.
Lastly, it is said, tlie fixation of a ceiling area by s. 14M, at
a fiat rate, irrespective of the nature and quality of the soil at 2.50
standard heclaJ'es in the case of a raiyat, who is an adult, unmarried
f
• •
•
•
'" iii
•
•
•
'
I
S. SEKHARMAITY V. UNION (Sen, J.)
1221
person, or the sole surviving ihember of a family; 5.0 standard hecA.
tares in the case of a raiy!t having a family consisting of two or more
members, but not more than five members, and 7.0 standard heel tares in the case of a raiyat having a family consisting of more than
five members, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and void .
Ch.aper IIB consists of ss.