Holding

The Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is a measure of agrarian reform and is saved by Article 31A, rendering it immune from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 on the ground that its provisions violated Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The State contended that the Act is a measure of agrarian reform and therefore falls within the protection of Article 31A, which bars any challenge to its validity on those grounds. The Supreme Court examined the dominant purpose of the Act, noting that it seeks a just and equitable redistribution of land by making tillers owners and imposing ceilings on holdings, and that ancillary provisions are necessary to give effect to this scheme. The Court held that the Act is indeed a measure of agrarian reform, saved by Article 31A, and consequently the petitioners could not invoke Articles 14, 19 or 31 against it. While the Court observed that certain provisions, such as the residence requirement in Section 7(2)(b), may be anomalous, it did not strike them down. The petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The question whether the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 constitutes a measure of agrarian reform within the meaning of Article 31A.
Whether the provisions of the Act violate Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
Whether the Act is immune from constitutional challenge under Article 31A.
The reasonableness of the residence requirement in Section 7(2)(b) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954
Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976s. 11, s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 17, s. 4, s. 5, s. 7, s. 9

Subjects

agrarian reformArticle 31Aland ceilingland redistributionconstitutional validityJammu & KashmirArticle 14Article 19Article 31compensationresidence requirement

Judgment

536

PREM NATH RAINA AND OTHERS .
'
'·
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS

August 4, 1983
B
(Y. V. CllANDRACHUD, C. J., R. S. PATHAK AND
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.)

Jammu and Kashmir Agrarion ~forms Act, 17 of 1976-a measure of
agrarian reform-Saved by Article 31Afrom challenge under Artic/es 14, 19 and
c 31 of the Constitution.

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Jammu and
Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 17 of 1976 on the ground that the Act
violated Articles 14. 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The petitioners contended
that as the Act contained certain provisions which were not co-related to
agrarian welfare, the Act could not be said to be a meas~ of agra_rian reform
D Md therefore not saved by Article 31A of the Constitution.

Dismissina the petitions,

HELD: The Act is a measure of agrarian reform and is •avod by Art.
-- ·---
31A from the challenge under Arts. 14, 19 or 3f of tho Constitution. [541 DJ
E
The question as to whether any particular Act is a measure of agrarian
refor111 has to be decided by looking at the dominant purpose of that Act. In
the instant case the dominant purpose of the statute· is to bring about a just
and equitable redistribution of lands, which is achieved by making the tiller
of the soil the owner of the Jand which he cultivates and by imposing a ceiling
F on the extent of the land which any person, whether landlord or tenallt, can
hold. The matters which are dealt with by the Act are essential steps in any
well conceived scheme of agrarian reform. The decision in Kochuni was treated
. in Ran}lt Singh as a special case which cannot apply to cases where the general
scheme of legislation is definitely agrarian reform and under its provisions,
something ancillary thereto in the interests of rural economy has to be- under-
taken to give full effect to those reforms. [541 A-D, 541 DJ •
G
Ranjit Singh v. State of PuJiiah, (1965J I 3.C.R. 82 and Kavalappara
Kottarathil Kochunl & Q,,, v. State of Madras & Ors., [l960J 3 S.C.R. 887, ~
referred to. ·

H The circumstance that the Act is maQc applicable to agricultural lands
situated within the limits of local authorities will not affect its character as a
measure of agrarian reform. If any land situated in a developed area is used
predominantlr for the purpose of a(ll'icult~ro, it is 011en tq the legislature tq
/

HtEM NATII v. i. AND K. (Chanjrachud; C.J.) S31

include that land in a scheme of agrarian feform so as to make the tiller of
that land its owner, The hyp9thetical possibility that after becoming statutory A
owners of agricultural lands situated in developed areas on payment of a paltry
price, the tillers will part with t~ose lands at a high price which lands in
developed areas like urban hreas fetch, cannot affect the basic position that
the Act is conceived in the larger interest of agrarian. reform. -The payment of
a larger compensation to land~holders under a land reform law than what
would be payable under an Act like the Urban Ceiling Act does not lead to
the conclusion that the former is not a measure of agrarian reform. [543 A~F] B
Section 7(2)(b) of the Act creates an anomalous situation, especially in
the context .of the definition of 'personal cultivation' in section 2(12) of the
Act. If it is permissible to cultivate a land through another person as specified
in clauses (b) to (g) of section 2(12), there is no reason why residence in tho
village where the land is situated or in an adjoining village should be compul~ c
sory for all persons, even for minors, widows, insane persons and persons in
detention. The exception made by the legislature in favour of the members of
defence forces ought to be extended to these other persons also. The exclusion
of a constitutional challenge under Articles, 14, 19 and 31 which is provided
for by Article 31A does not justify in equity the irrational violation of these
articles. (543 G, 544 B-D) D
Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, [1981) 2 S.C.R. I, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 4195 and 4445 of
1978, 8831. 8942 of 1981, 342-717, 803-804, 1005-1242, 6501-6746,
2860-3049, 3169-71, 3413-63, 7133-35 of 1982. E
V.M. Turkunde and Naunit Lal for the petitioners in W.P.
Nos. 4196/82, 6501-6746, 2860-3049, 342-717/82, and 8831/81.

S.S. Java/i, B.P. Singh and Ranlit 'KU11Jar for the petitioners
in.W.P. Nos. 4445/78, 8942, 1005-1242, 3413-3463 and 7133-35/82. F
Sanjay Kaul and Ashok Panda for the petitioners .in W.P. No.
3169/82.

L.N. Sinha, Attorney' General and R.j(. Oarg for the respondent
in W.P. Nos. 4195/82 anci 4445/78. B

Alta/ Ahmed for the respondents in all other matters.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by·
G
CHANDRACHUD, CJ ; By these Writ Petitions filed under Article
32 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the constitutional
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11983) J S.C.R.

validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 17 of
A 1976, oil the ground that the Act violates the provisions of Articles
14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. _This challenge is met by the
State of Jammu & Kashmir with the short answer that the impugned
Act being a measure of agrarian. reform, Article 31A: of the
Constitution precludes a ch.allenge to its validity. on the ground ) '.
'B that it violates the provisions contained in Articles 14,19 and 31.

The petitioners are mostly small land-holders owning
agricultural lands in the Stat~ of Jam mu & Kashmir. The Govern·
· ment of Jammu & Kashmir introduced several land, reforms in the
State, beginning with Tenancy Act VII of 1948. Jagirs and Muafis
c were abolished under that Act as a result of' which, approximately
9000 owners of agricultural lands lost their proprietary interest. in
about 4.5 lakh acres of land.; The State Legislature thereafter
passed the Tenancy (Amendment) Act VII of 1948, the Tenancy
(Ameudment) Act of 1950, the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act
of 1950, the Tenancy (Amendment) Acts of 1956, 1962 and 1965,
D the J & . K Tenancy (Stay of Ejectmcnt) Proceedings Act 1966, the
Agrarian Reforms Act of 1972 and finally the impugned Act, 17 of
1976, The last named Act received the assent of the Governor on
August 21, 1976. It was amended· by the Amendmc1it Act of 1978
which received the assent of the Gove;nor on April 7, 1978. '
E.
.· We will presently explain in brie_f the nature of the provisions
of the impugned Act but, before w'e do so, it will be useful to
acquaint oneself with the various steps which the Government of
Jammu & Kashmir took in the direction of land reforms, by . passing
the Acts to which we ,have referred eaflier. After abolishing the
F Jagirs al)d MuafiS"by the Tenancy Act of 1948, restrictions 'were
placed on the right ·of the landlord to eject the tenant, by the
.Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1948, The landlord was, however,
given the right to res11me the land from his tentant if he requi1ed it
bona fide for personal cultivation subject. to ceiling on his right of
resumption. The Big Landed Estates Abolitions .;\ct of. 1950 was
G
quite a revolutionary piece of legislation ;in the context of those
times. A ceiling was placed, by that Act on the holding , of proper·
ties at 182 Kanals, which comes roughly to 23 acres. The land
in excess of the ceiling was expropriated without the payment of any
compensation and the tiller of the soil became the owner of the
H
excess land, By subseque.nflegislations, tenants were given protec-
. tion in the matter of rents, certain classes of non-occupancy tenants
came· to be regarded as protected tenants and landlords were given
PREM NATH ~- J AND K (Chandrachud, C,i.) '539

a further opportunity for making applications for the resumption
of land. Thousands ·or applications were filed by the landlords A
under the provisions of the Tenancy Amendment Act of 1965 for
resumption of lands from tenants but, later, further proceeding in
those applications were stayed. The Janki Nath Wazir Committee
pointed out anomalies in· the various measures· taken by· the State
Legislature by way of the land reforms and it made recommendations
in order to remove the . inequities from which the land reforms
n
legislation undertaken by the State suffered. The State Government
constituted a Land Commission under the Chairmanship of the then
Revenue Minister, Syed Mir Kasim, in 1963 to examine· the Wazir
Committee's Report. Jn. 1967, the Sate Government appointed
another Commission of Inquiry, with Shri P.B. Gajendragadkar, c
retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as its Chairman. The
Gajendragadbr Commission made various recommendations by its
Report dated December 1968. It also pointed out the· defects from
which the Land Legislation in the State of Jammu & Kashmir
suffered and· suggested ways and means· for removing them. This D
long and empirical process ultimately culminated in the enactment
of the Act of 1976 which is impugned in these proceedings.

It is impossible to accept the contention of Shri V.M.
,..___,/
Tarknnde, who appears on be half of the petitioners, that by reason
of certain provisions of the impugned Act which are not co-related E
to agrarian welfare, the Act cannot be said to be a measure of
agrarian reform. The short title of the Act shows that it was passed
in order to provide for transfer of lands to the tillers of the lands
.... for the purpose of better utilisation of those lands Section 4 of the
Act provides that all rights, titles and interests in lands, which were F
not cultivated personally in Kharif 1971 .. shall be deemed to have.
been extinguished and shall vest in the ·State, free from all
encumbrances with effect from May l, 1973. By section 5, all lands
in excess of the ceiling area on September. I, 1971 vested in the
State on May 1, 1973. Section 7 provides for. the resumption of
laods by the ex-landlords for bona fide personal cultivation,· subject G
,..;p. to the conditions mentioned in section 7 (2). Section 9 provides for
payment of rent by the tillers of the soil to the State for lands which
have vested in the State. Section In provides for payment of the
amount due on the outstanding mortgages on lands. Section 11
provided that lands which vest in the State under the impugned Act H
shal\ be deemed to have been acquired by the State, for which pay-
ment shall be determined and made in accordance with the
siii'ililMB coua·r REPORTS (1983) ~ s.c.i
provisions of Schedule III. Section 13 lays down restrictions on the
A utilisation of lands of which tillers beconie owners. Section 14
prescribes for the optimum.retainable area of the land, section J 5
deals with the manner of disposal of surplus land,_ while section 17
imposes a prohibition on the transfer of lands. Chapter III of the
Act deals with the jurisdiction of several revenue officers and
Tribunals appointed under t;he Act and lays down the procedure
)
·~
B which they are required to follow. Chapter IV contains supplemental
provisions. Chapter V provides for penalties for the infringement of
the provisions of the Act, while Chapter VI provides for certain
miscellaneous matters. Schedule III defines 'compensation' to mean
the sum of money payble for land at the market value, while the
c word 'amount' is defined to mean the su!ll of money payable in lieu
of extinguishment of rights in land at rates other than the market
rate. The maximum amount payable for the extingui shment of the
rights of the landlords is-Rupees one thousand per kanal. These and ·
other cognate matters which are dealt with by the Act are .essential
steps in any well-conceived scheme of agrarian reform.
D
It is urged by learned counsel led by Shri Tarkunde and by
Shri Sanjay Kaul who appeared in person, that certain provisions
of the impugned Act have no bearing upon agrarian reform and
those provisions cannot have the protection of Article_31A. Sec-·
E tion 7 of the Act· is said to be one such ·provision. It provides
by sub-section (1) for the resumption of lands for bona fide personal
cultivation by ex-landlords but by sub-section (2) it imposes certain
conditions on the right of resumption. One of those conditions is
that the applicant for resumption, other than a member Of the
Defence Forces, must, within six months of the commencement of'
F the Act, take .up normal residence in the village in which the land
sought to be resumed i~ situated or in an adjoining village, for the
purpose of cultivating the land personally. The other provision 9f
the Act on which special stress was laid by counsel for the peti-
tioners is the one contained in clause (f) of section 7(2) which lays
down certain criteria for determining the extent of land which may
G be resumed. Stated briefly, where a person was entitled to rent in
kind from the tiller during kbarif 1971, the extent ofland resumable
by such person has fo · bear the same proportion to the total land
comprised in the tenancy as the rent in kind bears to the total
produce; and where a person was entitled to rent in cash during
H Kharif 1971, the extent ofland resumable by him has to be regulated
by the extent of rent in kind to which such rent in cash can be
PREM NATH v. 1 AND K (ChandrachuJ, c.i.) 54i •

commuted in accordance with the provisions of sub~ections (3) and'
(8) of section 9. We are unable to hold that these and connected A
provisions of the impugned Act show that the Act is not a measure
of agrarian reform. The question as to whether any particular Act
is a measure of agrarian reform has to be decided by looking at the
dominant purpose of that Act. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Pnnjab('),
( it was held on a review of authorities that a large and liberal meaning
must be given to the several expressions like 'estate', 'rights in an
8
estate' and extinguishment and modification'· of such rights which
occur in Article 3lA. The decision in Kochuni(1) to which our atten-
tion was drawn by Shri Tarkunde, was treated in Ranjii Singh as a
special case which cannot apply to cases where the general scheme ·
of legislation is definitely agrarian reform and under its provisions, c
something ancillary thereto in the interests of rural economy has to
be undertaken to give full effect to those reforms. In our case the
domin'ant purpose of the statute is to bring about a just and equit-
able redistribution of lands, which is achieved by making the tiller
of the soil the owner of the land which he cultivates and by imposing
a ceiling on the extent of the land which any person, whether land- D
lord or tenant, can hold. Considering the scheme and purpose of·
the Act, we cannot but hold that the Act is a measure of agrarian
reform and is saved by Article 3 IA from the challenge under Articles
14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. Article 31 has been repealed by
the 44th Amendment with effect from June 20,. 1979 and for future E
purposes it ceases to have ·relevance. Reduced to a constitutional
premise, the argument of the petitioners is that the particular pro-
visions of the Act are discriminatory and are therefore violative of
Article 14; that those provisions impose unreasonable restrictions on
their fundamental rights and are therefore violative of article 19.
This argument is not open to them by reason of article 3lA. F

It may be. mentioned that The Constitution (Application to
Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, which was passed by the
President of India in exercise of his powers under article 370 of the
Constitution, makes article 3!A applicable to the State of Jammu
and Kashmir with the modification that the proviso to clause (I) of
G
that article stands deleted and for sub-clause (a) of clause (2) the
followin.g sub-clause is substituted

H
(1) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 82.
(2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887.
S42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. t19·g3j 3 s.c.R.
"(a)·''estate" shall mean land which is occupied or
A has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes
subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes-

(i) sites of buildings and otber structures on such land;

8 '(ii) trees standing on such land;

(iii) forest land and wooded waste;

(iv) area cov,ered by or fields floating over water;

c . (v) sites of jandars and gharats;

(vi) any jagir, inam, muafi or mukariari or other similar '
grant, but does not include-

D (iJ the site of any. building in any town area or
'village abadi or any land appurtenant to any
such· building or site;
',
(ii) any land .which is occupied as the site of a town
E , or village; or

(iii) ' any land reserved for building purposes in a
municipality or notified area or cantonment or
town area or any area for which a town
F . planning scheme is sanctioned."
' '

, The grievance of the petitioners is that not only ·do certain
provisions of the Act militate against agrarian ·reform, but those
.provisions will involve the St~te Government into payment of con·
siderable 'amounts' to land-holders for the extinction and acquisition
G
of their rights, which would be far greaier than the amounts which the
State Government would be liable to
pay under Acts like. the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Agricultural lands which are
situated within the'limlts of municipalities and Town Area Committees
H of
are also comprehend within the scope the Act. and the apprehension
of the petitioners is that, after the tillers become statutory purchJsers
of those lands, they will be free to dispose them of at urban price.s
which have escalated sky-high. Another facet of the same argument
PREM NATH v. 1 AND K ( Chandrachud, C.J.) 543

is that no agrarian reform is involved in appl}'ing the impugned
statute to lands situated in urban a·gglomerations. A

These arguments are not relevant for deciding the question as
to whether the dominant purpose of tl)e Act is agrarian reform ..
( Th~ payment of a larger compensation to land-holders under a Land
Reform Law than what would be payable under an Act like the· B
Urban Ceiling Act does not lead fo the conclusion that the former
is not a measure of agrarian reform. The extent and mode of pay-
ment of compensation for the extinction of a land-holder's right is a
matter for the legislature to decide and the circumstance that the
compensation or the amount fixed by \he legislature in any given
case is excessi~e, will not make the law any-the-less a measure of c
agrarian reform. In the same manner, the circumstance that the
impugned statute is made applicable to agricultural lands .situated
within the limits of Local Authorities will not affect its character as
a measure of agrarian reform. If any land situated in a developed
area is used predominantly for the purpose ·of agriculture, it is open D
to the legislature to include that land in a scheme of agrarian reform
so as to make the tiller of that land its _owner. The apprehension_
; expressed by the petitioners that, after becoming statutory owners
of agricultural lands situated in -developed areas on payment of a
paltry price, the tillers will part with those lands at a high price
which lands in developed areas like urban areas fetch, is. hypothetical E
though not unreal. Not unreal, because the temptation to trade in
. immovable property is comn;on to agriculturists and non-agricultu-
rists alike. But the hypothetical possibility that the lands will be
disposed of by to-day's tillers to-morrow, cannot affect. the basi~
position that the Act is conceived in th~ larger interest of agrarian F
reform. Besides, section 13 which places restriction on utilisation •
. of lands, section 17 which imposes restrictions to a limited extent
on the transfer of such lands and section 14 which prescribes the
optimum land which can be retained even by an erstwhile tenant
are effective deterrents against profit-oriented disposal of high-priced
lands. . G

Before parting with tllis case, we would· like t-0 observe that
.section 7(21 (b) of the Act creates an anomalous situation, especially
in the context o.f the definition of 'personal cultivation' in section
2(12) of the Act. One of the conditions imposed by section 7(2) (b)
H
on the right of a land-holder to resume land is· that, unless he is a
member of the defence forces, he must take his residence in the
SUPREME COURT REPORTS !I983l 3s.c.i..
village in which the land is situated or in an adjoining village.
A "Personal cultivation" is defined in section 2(12) to mean cultivation
by any member of one's family or by .a khana·nishin daughter or
a_ khana-damad or a parent of the person or by other relations
Ii~ the son, brother or sister who are specified in the various
clauses of section 2(12). Under . clause (g) of section 2(12), a )
B land-holder who is a minor, insane, physically disabled, in·
capacitated by old age or infirmity, a widow or a person in
detention or in person can· cultivate the land through a servant
or hired labourer under the personal supervision of his or her
guardian or agent. If it is permissible to cultivate a land through
another person as specified in clauses (b) to (g) of section 2(12), it
t c is difficult to understand w)l.y residence in the village where the land
is situated or in an adjoining . village should be compulsory for all
persons, even for minors, widows, insane persons and persons in
detention. The exception made by the legislature in favour of the
members of defence forces ought to be extended to these other per·
D sons also, The exclusion of a constitutional challenge under Articles
·14, 19 and 31 which is provided for by Article 31A does not justify
in equity the irrational violation of these articles. This Court did
observe in Waman Rao(') that : "It may happen that while existing
inequalities are being removed, new inequalities may arise marginally
and incidentally" ·but the legislature has to take care to see that ·
E even marginal and incidental inequalities are not created without
rhyme or reason. The Government of J & K would do well to
give fresh consideration to the provisions contained in section · 7 (2)
and modify the provisions regarding residence in order that they may
accord with reason and commonsense. Article 31A does not frown
F upon reason and commo nscnse.

For these reasons, we uphold the constitutional velidity of the
Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and dismiss these
·petitions. There will be no order as to costs.

G H.S.K . Petition dismssed.

.(1) [1981] 2 S.C.R. l,