Holding

The Gujarat Government Resolution is valid, falls within the powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules, and does not violate Article 14 as the classification is reasonably related to the Code’s social‑welfare objective.

Summary

The case concerned the validity of a Gujarat Government Resolution dated 28 December 1966 that discontinued public auctions for bhatha lands and instead allocated lease‑hold rights preferentially to bona‑fide agriculturists, Harijans, Adivasis, backward classes and cooperative societies. Petitioners claimed they were unlawfully dispossessed of lease rights obtained under earlier Eksali leases and argued that the Resolution was ultra vires the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of the Code and Rules, noting that the Collector may dispose of unoccupied government lands in any manner authorised by the State, and that the Code’s purpose includes equitable land distribution, not merely revenue maximisation. The Court held that the classification in the Resolution had a rational nexus to the Code’s social‑welfare objective and was not arbitrary, thus the Resolution was within legislative power and did not infringe Article 14. Consequently, the High Court’s order quashing the Resolution was set aside and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

The Government Resolution of 28‑December‑1966 disposing bhatha lands by preference violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Resolution exceeds the powers conferred by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921.
Whether the classification of beneficiaries (bona‑fide agriculturists, Harijans, Adivasis, backward classes, cooperative societies) bears a reasonable relation to the object of the Code.
Whether petitioners, holding Eksali lease rights, could be dispossessed without compliance with Section 79(A) read with Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the Resolution and directing the State not to dispossess the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879s. Section 202, s. Section 37, s. Section 62, s. Section 68, s. Section 79(A)
Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921s. Rule 37, s. Rule 41, s. Rule 42
Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

bhatha landleasehold rightsArticle 14classificationland reformpublic auctionpreferential allocationBombay Land Revenue Codesocial justiceequality

Judgment

1182

A STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
y,
VAGHELA DAYABHAI CHATURBHAI & ORS.
March 5, 1980

B [P. N. SHINGHAL AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
•
Constitution of India 1950; Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 & Bombay
Land Rerenue Rules 1921-Allotment and grant of cultivation rights Ol'tr
'Bluuha lands'-State Governnient Resolution providing for preference to ltari.
jans, adivasis and backward class people-Constitutional guarantee of equality ,.;II
under Article 14--Whether violated. ,
c JVords & Phrases-'Bhatha lands'-Meaning of

The expression "bhatha land" means land which forms part of the bed of a
river on \Vhich vegetables, rn'elon, cucumber etc. can be grown during the lean
period after the rainy season is over, when the level of the water in the river
is quite ]ow. The cultivation of such land is possible only till the next rainy
season a,; the land gets submerged under the river water. The occupancy rights.
D over such land cannot ordinarily be granted on a permanent basis as in the case
of cultivabl'e lands, in view of the fact that the land gets submerged under the
river water every year for 4-5 months.

Till the year 1951 the cultivation rights over 'bhatha lands' were disposed
of by public a1,1ction and the successful bidders were treated as l'essors of the
lands for short periods. In the year~ 19 51 the State Government ordered that
E the leasehold rights over 'bhatha lands' should be disposed of by selection, the
crder of priority being (1) bona fide agriculturists who h2.d cultivated the land
personally for five years or more, (2) adjacent land holders who had insufficient
land for maintenance of their families, (3) coop'erative farming societies and
(4) priority holders under the Waste Land Rules.
This order was however cancelled and superseded by the Governm·ent Reso~
lution dated September 19, 1962 which provid'ed that on the expiry of the then _ -1
F existing leases, not held by cooperative farming societies, bhatha land should
be disposed of on the basis of five years' lease by public auction. Exp~rience
showed that only the moneyed people were able to purchas'e the leasehold rights
at the public auction and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and the oth'er wea.ker sections of society were not even able to participate
in such auctions. Consequently, in the year 1964 leasehold rights over bhatha
lands were disposed of on ekasal basis by public auctions.
G
The question relating to the· disposal of leasehold rights ov'er bbatha lands
was discussed' &t the meeting of the District-Collectors held in 1965-1966 and in
pursuance to the suggestions made at the meeting and after considering all rde~
,.ant matters the State Government by a Resolution dated 28th December, 1966 7

directed that the 'existing procedure for dispos.al of bhatha lands by aucticn be
disoontinued with effect from fanuary 1, 1967 and the disposal of such lands
H were ordered to be in the following priority : ( 1) bona fide agriculturists ef the
village who were holding land less than 5 acr'es, preference being given to hari-
jans, adivasi and backward class people (2) holders of the land adjoining the
GUJARAT V. V. D. CHATURBHA! 1183

bhatha la.nd holding less than 16 acres and having genuine need of additional A
land for maintenance of their families; (3) cooperative farming societies of
harija:..s, adivasi and backward classes people, ( 4) coopera.tive farming societies
consisting of la.ndless labourers or small holders and (5) any of the priority
holders under the Waste Land Rules.

In pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution, the Collector by his Order dated
• July 18, 1967, granted 22 members belonging to Waghari Harijan Community B
leasehold rights in resp'ect of bhatba l·ands for a period of 10 years.

The respondents questioned the validity of the Government Resolution dated
December 28, 1966 and the Order of th:e Collector dated July 18, 1967 granting
the lease, in their writ petitions. They alleged that some of them were in pos-
session of portions of the land of which th'ey had been dispossessed by the Order
of the Collector by virtue of the eksal tenures created in their favour in the C
auctions held in or about the year 1964 and that they could not be dispo81iC['ised
without following the procedure prescribed by section 79(A) reOO with section
202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Tirey also contended that the
Government Resolution dated December 28, 1966 and the grants made by the
CoJlector on the basis of the said Resolution w'ere liable to be struck down en
the ground that they were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and that
they had been arbitrarily deprived of an opportunity to offer bids at public auc- D
tions and to a'Cquire Ieas'chold rights.

The State Government contested the petitions on the ground that none of the
respondents was in possession of the lands in question on the d.afe of the writ
petitions and that some of them who continued to remain in possession of certain
portions of the land after the expiry of the eksal lease. were dispossessed in
accordance with law and that the lands have been handed over to the grantees I:
as per the Kabza receipts. The Resolution dated December 28, 1966, was
· pas,,ed in order to grant lease in respect of bhatha lands in flavour of the landless
persons or persons having small extent of lands or persons belonging to Sche<lu1~
ed Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes and members of cooperative
societies at reasonable rent without being put to the necessity of offering bids at
public auctions, where only moneyed persons could become successful bidders.

The High Court quashed the Resolution on two grounds : (I) That the act
F
of the State Government in passing the Resolution amounfed to a fraud on the
Statute as the power of the State under the Code which was a taxation nwasure
had been utilized for a collateral purpose of achieving a welfare scheme and (2)
that the Resolution was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as there was
no rational nexus between the object to be achieved by th'e Code viz. realisation
of land revenue and the classification of persons eligible for the grant of lease-
hold rights in r'espect of bhatha lands into several groups. It further directed
G
the Sta.te Government qot to take ~into consideration the Government's circular
issued pursuant to the impugned Resolution while considering the question of
renewal of leases or disposal of bhatha lands and not to· dispossess the writ peti-
tioners except in due course of law.

Allowing the appeals,
H
HEID : 1 (i) The Preamble of the Olde provides that it had been passed a•
it was found ex~dient to consolidate and amend the law relating to Revenue
21-138 SCI/80
1184 S\Jl'iH.MB COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.a.

A Officers and to the assessment and recovery of Land Revenue and to other
matters connected with Land Revenue Administration. [1193B].

(ii) The other provisions of th'e Code and the Rules made thereunder show
that it is open to the Collector to dispose of unoccupied lands belonging to the
Government either for cultivation or for any other purp·ose in favour of indivi..
duals or aggregate of individuals either fr'ee of charge or at an upset price to be
B fixed by him or by public auction. A review of the several Government orders •
passed under the Code shows that lands belonging to Government had been oct
apart free of charge for several public purposes such as free pasturage, burial
grounds, roads, religious institutions, dhobies' ghats, potters' grounds, threshing
floors 'etc. Land revenue was remitted when there- were drought conditions.
Forfeited holdings were often given back to defaulters who had not paid land
revenue once again, on payment of arrears out of compassion. Tagavi loana
c were given by Government to occupants to improve lands. The dominant pur-
pose of the Code, therefore appears to be public welfare, even though land
revenu'e which was recoverable under the Code constituted an important source
of revenue of the State Government. [1196A-E]
(iii) After India became independent, land reform measures had to be intro--
duc'ed by the States in India to prevent concentration of land in a few hands and
to impose ceiling on the extent of land that could be held by an individual or a
D family, to take possession of land from individuals or families which w"'
in
excess of the ceiling so imposed and to distribute such excess land amongst
persons ltelonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker •ec-
tions of society. All these laws were made in order to implement the Directive
Principles of State Policy contained in Articles 38, 39 and 46 of the comtitution
by strengthening agrarian economy. Never before was there a greater need as
during the post-Constitution period for administering land revenue laws in an
E equitable manner so that the economic interests of the_ weaker sections of the
society and in particular of members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedul.
ed Tribes are protected and promoted. [1196F-Hl

(iv) There is no provision in the Code or the Rules made thereunder which
prohibits disposal of 'occupancy rights or leMehold rights in respect Of unoccu-
pied lands in any manner other than public auction. [1197Al
F
( v) The conclusion reached by the High Court that the basic scheme of the
Code was the realization of land revenue by disposing Of unoccupied lands by
public auction alone appears to be baseless. [1197B]

(vi) The finding of the High Court that the impugned Resolution which
provides for the disposal of bbabha lands amongst bona fide agriculturists, hari-
G jans, adivasis and backward class people and other persons mentioned therein
without resorting to public auction but by having recou= to the procedure oct
out in it is contrary to the latter and the spirit of the Code is set aside.
[1197CJ

2(i) The Resolution is designed to bring about distribution of agricltural
lands as best to sub<'erve the common gOOd thus eliminating concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment. It helps persons,
who are in need of lands for their bare maintenance and who have otherwise no
chance of getting them, to acquire lands at a low rate of rent. [11990]
GUJARAT v. v. D. CHATURBHA! (Venkataramiah, !.) 1185

(ii) The classification made in the impugned Resolution of persons or co- A
operative societies who are eligible to secure grants of leasehold rights, bears a
reasonable relation to the object with which the Code is enacted. It cannot be
characterised as arbitrary. There is no infirmity in the above classification. The
Resolution aims at bringing about social and economic justice and assists people
who are not strong enough to secure leasehold rights at a public auction for
purpos'es of cultivation. The leases to be granted oce not for any unlimited
• period. [1199E] B "
(iii) The High Court was in error in holdng that the Resolution was vrolative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. [1199F]
J- 3. The High Court did not record any firm finding on the question of pos-
session of any part of the land by any of the writ petitioners. The direction
issued by the High Court to the State Government and the Revenue authorities
not to dispossess the writ petitions except in due course of law therefore
c
becomes unsustainable. [1191HJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 281-285 of
1970.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25/28-4-1969 of the Gujarat
High Court in SCA Nos. 1520, 850, 1079, and 1117 of 1967 and D
201 of 1968.
S. T. Desai, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh and M. N. Shroff for the
Appellants.
Mrs. E. Udayarathnam for respondent No. 1 in CA 284/70.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J.-These five appeals by certificate are pre-
ferred by the State of Gujarat against the conunon judgment dated
April 25/28, 1969 delivered in five petitions under Article 226 of
the Constitution on the file of the High Court of Gujarat in which the
constitutional validity of the Resolution of the Government of Gujarat F
bearing No. L,B.B. 3964/101585-C dated December 28, 1966 issuing
directions regarding the procedure to be followed in the disposal of
'bhatha lands' with effect from January L 1967 inter alia providing
for showing preference to Harijans, adivasis, backward class persons
and co-operative farming societies c0nsisting of landless labourers or G ,
small holders in the matter of cultivation rights over bhatha land was
challenged. The expression 'bhatha land' means land which forms
part of the bed of a river on which vegetables, melon, cucumber etc.
can be grown during the lean period after the rainy season is over
when the level of the water in the river is quite low. The cultivation
of this land is possible only till the next rainy season and when the u·
river swells during the rainy season, the said land again gets sub- 1
merged under the river water. The occupancy rights over such land
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.R.

A cannot ordinarily be granted on a permanent basis as in the case of
other cultivable lands in view of the land getting submerged under
river water every year for 4-5 months. The lands in question are
situated in the Bombay area of the State of Gujarat. Till the year
1951, the cultivation rights over bhatha lands in the area in question

• were being disposed of by public auction and the successful bidders
were being treated as lessees of the lands for short periods. In the
year 1951, the State Govel"!lfilent ordered that the leasehold rights
•

over bhatha lands should be disposed of by selection in the following
oFder of priority:-
1. Bona fide agriculturists who had cultivated the land per-
c sonally for five years or more.
2. Adjacent land holders who, in the Collector's opinion, had
insufficient land for maintenance of their families.
3. Co-operative farming societies and
4. Priority holders under the Waste Land Rules.
D The above order was cancelled and superseded by the Govern-
ment Resolution dated September 19, 1962 which provided that on
the expiry of the then existing leases, not held by co-operative farm-
ing societies, bhatha lands should be disposed of on the basis of five
years' lease by public auction. Experience showed that only the
moneyed people were abl.e to purchase the lease-hold rights at the
E public auction and p_ersons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other weajcer sections of society were not even able to
participate in such auctions. In the year 1964 however, lease-hold
rights over bhatha lands were disposed of on eksal basis by public
auctiO!l. The question relating to the procedure to be followed in
the disposal of the lease-hold rights over bhatha lands was discussed
at the meeting of the Collectors held in 1965-66 and after taking into
consideration all relevant matters and the suggestions made at the
above said meeting, the State Government passed the following
Resolution in supersession of all existing orders:-
"Government of Gujarat
c Revenue Department
No. L.B.B. 3964/101585-C
Sachivalaya, Ahmedabad-15
Date: 28-.12-1966

H RESOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT
In cancellation of all existing orders in regard to disposal of Bet
and Bhatha land by auction, Government is pleased to direct that
GUJARAT v. v. D. CHATURBHAI (Venkataramiah, J.) 1187

existing procedure of disposal of Bhatha land by auction should ~ A
discontinued from 1st January, 1967 and such land should be dis·
posed of according to instructions detailed below:-
1. The existing lease held by co-operative society should
be renewed on their expiry only to the members of co-
• operative society. Individually held land less than 16 acres
excluding the bet-bhathi! land and the total holding of the
number including the land to be granted is not more than
•
the member or members 16 acres.
2. If condition ( 1) is fulfilled the lease in favour of the
co-operative societies should be renewed for a further period
of 10 years on payment of revised rent which should be
c
fixed on the basis of the factor~ enumerated hereinafter
instruction number ( 6) below.
3. As regards Bhatha lands which have been leased in
favour of individuals such lease should not be renewed but
on the expiry of such lease the lands should be disposed of D
to priority holders as enumerated in instruction No: 5 on
payment of rent to be determined on the basis of factors
"-numerated in instruction No. 6. There will be no objec-
tion to renew the lease in favour of such individual if he is
otherwise eligible as per principles fixed in this G .R.
E
4. As regards new Bet Bhatha lands which are to be dis-
posed of for the first time they should also be granted to
p_riority holders as mentioned in instruction No. 5, on the
basis of rent charged for similar lands which have been
disposed of as per instructions contained in the G .R. or
which have been disposed of in the past by auction. · I'
5. The priority fQI disposal of Bet Bhatha land should
be as under:-
1. Bona fide agriculturists of the village who are holding
lartd less than 5 acres. Preference in this case will be given
to Harijan adivasi and backward class people. G
2. Holders of the land adjoining the Bet Bhatha land
holding land Jess than 16 acres and who in the opinion of
Collector have a genuine need of additional lands for main-
tenance of their families. Inter se preference in this case
also will be as per (1) above.
B
3. Co-operative farming societies of Harijans, adivasi
and backward class persons.
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

· A 4. Co-operative farming societies consisting of landless
labourers or small holders.
5. Any of the priority holders under the waste land
rules. The individuals as well as co-operatives of the
village in which the Bet Bhatha lands are ~ituated wiJl have
'B their first priority while the individuals and co-operative •
societies of neighbouring villages within a radius of ~ miles
shall be given priority i!). the order of nearness from village
where the Bet Bhatha Lands are situated. If there are
claims of two equal priority holders for the same land the
disposal wiJl be by lots."
c Thereafter twenty-two members belonging to Waghari Harijan
community were granted lease-hold rights in respect of a J,hatha land
for a period of ten years pursuant to the above Government Resolu-
tion by the Collector of Ahmedabad on July 18, 1967. The relevant
part of the aforesaid order of the Collector dated July 18, 1967 rea~
as follows:-....
D
"
No. C.B.A.R.E.V. 165
District Collector's Office
Ahmedabad
18-7-67
. E
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that under mentioned twenty-two members
of Waghari Harijan Ganotia Samuha Kheti Mandali (unlimited)
Santhal, .have been granted lands for cultivation, out of the Govern- ,-(
F men! BHATHA-LANDS, for the period of ten years each member
not to have more than four acres of land, on the conditions hereinafter
mentioned.

Names of members of the Waghari Harijan Ganotia Samuha Kheti
G Mandali (unlimited)

TERMS
1. These lands are granted on the condition that Waghari
Harijan Ganotia Samuha Kbeti Mandali (unlimited) must
e get itself registered within one year.
2. Either the individual or a co-operative society shall not be
granted BET-BHATHA LANDS at more than one place.
;
GUJARAT v. v. D. CHATURBHAI (Venkataramiah, J.) 1189

3. Within the period of fifteen days from the date of the A
harvest of the crop from BET BHATHA lands shall be paid
np. Rules regarding snspension or remission of land revenne
shall not be applica_ble to the realization of this rent.
4. The land shall be cultivated per~onally by the grantee, un-
• less under exceptional circninStances. The decision of the B
Collector regarding the ~xistence of such exceptional cir-
cumstances shall be final on this condition. Lease shall be
terminated, withont granting any compensation.
5. Rent shall be fixed ~d payable according to sections 6 and
7 of Government Resolution Revenue Department No. C
L.B.B. 3964-101585-G dated 28-12-1966.
6. All conditions mentioned in PATTA shall be complied
with.
7. The Collector shall be authorised to revoke the lease deed
before the expiration of the period of the lease. 0
8. Unless lease deeds are execut~d, the occupation of the land
shall be treated as unauthorised one.
Besides conditions mentioned above, all conditions mentioned in
Government Resolution Revenue Department No. L.B.B. 3964-
101585-G dated 28-12-1966 shall be applicable to this grant. E
This grant shall be valid for the period of ten years from the year
1967-68. This grant expires on 31-5-1977.
Lease deed to be executed and k.ept in record.
Sd/- Niranjan Singh,
Collector, F
Ahmedabad."
Aggrieved by the above grant, the petitioners in Special Civil
Application No. 1079. of 1967 which was one of the writ petitions out
of which these appeals arise questioned the validity of the Govern-
ment Resolution dated December 28, 1966 and the order of the G
Collector granting the.lease dated July 18, 1967 in favour of the said
tweaty-two persons. lI1 the oti\er four petitions also, the said Resolu-
tion and certain grants made by the Collector were questioned.
The petitioners in all the petitions alleged that some of them were
in po~session of portions of the lands which had been disposed of by
the order of the Collector by virtue of the eksal tenures created in their e
favour under auctions held in or about the year 1964 and they could
not be dispossessed without following the procedure prescribed by
'

1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A section 79-A read with section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). One of them
alleged that he was a permanent tenant of a portion of the land. They
contended that the Govsirnment Resolution dated December 28, 1966
and the grants made by the Collector on the basis of the said Resolu-
tion were liable to be struck down on the ground that they were viola-
B tive of Article 14 of the Constitution. Their main grievance was that •
they had been arbitrarily deprived of an opportunity to offer bids at
public auctions and to acquire lease-hold rights. They prayed for
the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Stat~ Gov-
ernment and the Revenue authorities not to disposs~s them on the
c b_asis of the impugned Resolution of the Goverrup.ent and the orders
of the Collector. The State Gove=ent and the other respondents
in the writ petitions resisted the petitions. After hearing the parties,
the High Court quashed the Government Resolution and the grants
made by the Collector holding that they were ultra vires the scheme
of the Code and were also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
D The State Government was directed not to take into consideration the
Government circular issued pursuant to the impugned Resolution while
con~idering the question of renewal of leases or disposal of
bhatha lands in question and- not to dispossess the writ petitioners
except in due course of law. The Siate Government has questioned
the order made by the High Court in these appeals.
E
Before going into the question relating to the validity of the im-
pugned Resolution and the grants made by the Collector, it is neces-
sary to deal with the question whether any of the writ petitioners were
in possession of the lands in question. The allegation made by them
in this regard was denied by the State Government. In the course of
the counter affidavits filed before the High Court, it was pleaded on
behalf of the State Government that none of the writ petitioners was
in possession of any portion of the lands in question on the date of
the petition that some of them who continued to remain in possession
of cerw,in portions of the land after the expiry of the eksal leases were
dispossessed in accordance with law and that the land had been handed
G over to the grantees as per kabza receipts. Dealing with the question
of possession, the High Court observed in the course of its order as
follows:-
"The petitioners claim in these petitions that they were
cultivating these lands as tenants, except the petitioner in
ll Sp. C.A. No. 1079/11967 who claims to be a permanent
tenant. The case of the petitioners was that at the relevant
time they had been given Eksali (of one year) leases on the
GUJARAT v. v. D. CHATURBHAJ (Venkataramiah, J.) 1191

expiry of which their right of renewal was completely A
taken away by the aforesaid circular. The circular ·had
completely fettered the discretion of the competent authori-
ties under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, herein-
after referred to as 'the Code' and had created an absolute
rule excluding the petitioners so much so that they could not
• even now give a bid at any public auction for these lands. B
·Even though in Sp. C.A. No. 1079/67 the case of the
petitioner was of a lease in perpetuity the State had contro-
verted this allegation and no such grant was produced.
· The case of the State was that the pe_titioner was in illegal
possession after the Eksali lease in 1964. Therefore, even
that case also stands on the same footing. In view of the
c
said disputed questions of facts which cannot be resolved by
us, the petitioner, therefore, challenged the impugned cir-
cular on the grounds ( 1) that it is ultra vires the Code,
especially as it creates an absolute rule excluding Jhe peti-
tioners who would have been entitled under the provisions of D
the Land Revenue Code to get these le.ases by bidding at
the public auction as per the relevant rules. The impugned
order in this connection violates the policy of th~ Code
which is to augment the Government revenue and which
does not contain any policy of excluding any person from
the disposal of these unalienated GovernJl!ent lan_ds, (2) the
petitioners, further challenge the impugned order on the
ground that it is discriminatory and violates Article 14 and
the inequality is writ large on the face of the entire order
especially the so called reservations in favour of Harijans,
adivasis and backward class people are so excessive t~t all
F
the 1GO per cent lands would get reserved for them under this
policy of priority and the petitioners would be completely
exclnded."

There is no reference to the question of possession of the land by
the respondents in any other part of the judgment of the High Court. G
From the portion of \he judgment extracted above, it is seen that the
High Court did not record any firm finding on the question of posses·
sion of any part of the land by any of the . writ petitioners. It,
therefore, follows that the direction issued by the High Court to the
State Government and the. Revenue authorities not to dispossess the
writ petitioners except in due course of law beromes unsustainable. H
What remains to be considered in these appeals is whether the im-
pugned Resolution and the orders of the Collector are valid or not.
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1Y80] 2 S.C.R..

A There. is no dispute that the writ petitioners were not eligible under
the impugned Resolntion for any grant being made in preference to,
the grantees in these cases and if the impugned Resolution is valid,
the grants made by the Collector becOl]).e unassailable. It is on
' account of the above position the writ petitioner challenged the valid-

• ity of the Resolution passed by the Government on December 28,
1966. The High court quashed the said Resolutiou on two grounds:
(1) that the act of the State Government in passing the Resolution
•
amounted to a fraud on the statute as the power of the State under
the Code which was a taxation measure had bee.Jl utilized for a colla-
teral purpose of achieving a welfare scheme and (2) that the Resolu-
c tion was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as there was no
rational nexus between the object to be achieved by the Code viz.
realization of land revenue and the classificatiop. of persons eligible
for the grant of lease-hold rights in respect of bhatha lands into several
group§.. On the first groun~, the H;igh Court observed as follows:-
"The Code in terms directs the statutory authority, the
D Collector to make disposal exercising his judicial discretion,
of course, subject to the statutory rules or even subject to the
orders of the Government which ha'!'.:e statutory force. The
whole purpose and object of the Land Revenue Code is never
to exclude any citizen, and such exclusion by way of an
absolute rules leaving no discretion even to the statutory
authority would be completely beyond the scope of a
regulatory measure. This would be pJescribing the end and
not prescribing means to an end. The end has been laid
down by the Legislature in this case and it is one of
augmenting the land revenue, and for the purpose of revenue
F administration under this Code, if any dispos_!!l is made, the
disposal would be ordinarily to augment land revenue. It
may be that in exceptional cases, the authority may give
remissio'n as in famine years or on other grounds which are
specified under the scheme of the Code or the Rules. The
end which is envisaged to be achieved by the Code is one
G of getting revenue augmented which is the obvious end of
any taxation measure. The end which the impugned regu-
lation seeks to achieve is totally a different end."

From a reading of the above observations of the High Court, it
becomes obvious that the High Court felt that the Resolution which
B had been passed with a view to showing preference to memberi
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward
classes, landless persons who belonged to the weaker sections of
GUJARAT v. v. D. CH,ATURBHAI (Venkataramiah, !.) 1193

society and members of co-operative fanning societies did not sub- A
serve the object of the Code i.e. realization of maximum revenue.
The High Court also felt that there was no scope for the passing of
any order or resolution in the nature of a welfare measure while
admi\llsteiing the provisions of the code. In order to examine the
correctness of the above view of the High Court, it is necessary to
• refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Code. The Preamble B
of the Code provides that it had been passed as it was found expedient
to consolidate and amend the law relating to Revenue officers and to
the assessment and recovery of Land Revenue and to other matters
connected with the Land Revenue Administration. Chapters II and
Ill o: the Code deal with constitution powers of!icers provision relating c
to the security to be furnished by certain Revenue officers and the
lia!>ility of principals and · sureties. Chapter V of the Code is
entitled 'Of Lands and Land Revenue' and contains sections 37 to 59.
Section 37 of the Code declares that 'all public roads, loans and
paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes, and fences, on, or beside, the same,
the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water- D
mark, and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes, and tanks, and 8ll canals,
and water-courses, and all standing and flowing water, and all lands
wherever situated, which are not the property of individuals, or of
aggregates of persons legally capable of holding property, and except
in so far as any right of such persons may be established, in or over
the same, and except as may be otherwi~e provided in any law for E
the time being in force are and are hereby declared to be, with all
rights, in or over the same, or appertaining thereto, the property of
the Government and it shall b.e lawful for the Collector subject to the
order of the State Government, to dispose of them in such manner as
he may deem fit, or as may be authorised by general rules sanctioned
F
by the Government concerned, subject always to the rights of way, and
all other rights of the public or of individual legally subsisting.' The
aforesaid section 37 of the Code vests the rights in all properties
referred to therein the State Government and provides that it is !awful
for the Collector subject to the orders of the State Government to
dispose of them in such manner as he may deem fit or as may be G
authorised by the general rules sanctioned by the Government. The
State Government is thus .constituted the proprietor of the several
items referred to therein. While the Collector has been given the
power of disposal of the land belonging to the Government, he can
do so only in accordance with the other provisions of the Code and
the Rules made thereunder and subject to any order or resolution H
passed by the State Government. The power of the State Govern-
ment to make r•ders under section 37 (I) of the Code is not in tbe
1!94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 2 S.C.l<.

pature of appellate or revisional powers which are dealt with separately
under sections 203 and 211 of the Code but is iu the nature of an
admiuistrative power enabliug the State Govergment to regulate the
power of the Collector. Section 38 of the Code authorises the
survey officers whilst survey operations are proctl_eding under Chapter
VIII of the Code and at any other time the Collector to set apart lands
B which belonged to the State Government and not iu the lawful occu-
pation of any person or aggregate of persons, in unalienated villages
or unalienated portions of villages, for free pasturage for the village
c,i_ttle, for forest reserves, or for any other pu{Jlic or municipal pur-
pose; and lands assigned specially for any such purpose shall
not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Collec-
c tor. Section. 39 of the Code restricts the right of grazzing on free
pasturage-lands to the cattle of the village or villages to which such
lands belong or have been assigned. Section 44 of the Code recog-
nizes the existence of certain privileges of villagers or of certaiu classes
of persol1s to cut fire-wood or timber for domestic or other purposes
D even in the case of villages or lands in which the rights of the Gov-
ernment to the trees have been reserved under section 40 of the Code.
Section 48 of the Code sets out the manner of assessment and altera-
tion of assessment of any land. It provides that the land .revenue
leviable on any land shall be assess,d with reference to the use of
the land-(a) for the purpose of agriculture, (b) for the purpose of
building and ( c) for a purpose other than agriculture or
building. Sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Code em-
powers the Collector or a survey officer, subject to any
rules rnaqe in this behalf, to prohibit the use for certain purposes of
any land liable to the payment of land revenue and to summarily evict
any holder who uses or attempts to use the same for any such pro-
F hibited purpose. Chapter VIII lays down the procedure to be follow-
ed in the course of survey and settlement proceedings thus ensuring
that there is an equitable classification of lands for purposes of levy
. of just assessment in the light of the relevant economic factors. The
principles underlying the said procedure prohibit the levy of oppres-
sive or excessive revenue. There is no scope for levy of extortfonate
G
revenue which may be termed as rackrent.
Chapter VI of the Code deals with tl;ie provisions relating to the
grant, use and reliuquishment of land. Section 62 of the Code which
Jays down the conditions subject to which unoccupied land may be
granted provides th_at the Collector may, subject to such ~Jes as may
H from time to time be made by the State Government, reqmre the pay-
ment of a price for uilalienated land or to sell the same by auction or
to annex such conditions as he may deem fit. Rule 37 of the
GUJARAT v .• V. D. CHATURBHAI (Venkataramiah, J.) 1195

Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules') which are promulgated by the State Government
in exercise of its powers under sections 213 and 214 of
the Code provides that any unoccupied survey number not
assigned for any special purpose may, at the Collector's discretion, be
granted for agricultural purposes to such person as the Collector deems
• fit, either upon payment of a price fixed by the Collector, or without B
charge, or may be put up to public auction. When land is granted
under section 62 read with Rule 37, the grantee acquires a heritable
and transferable occpancy right over the land granted, subject to the
lawful conditions imposed under the grant. The proviso to section
68 of the Code, however, provides that notwithstanding any provision
in the Code, it shall not be unlawful f9r the Collector at any time to
c
grant permission to any person to occupy any unalienated unoccupied
land for such period and on such conditions as he may, subject to
rules made by the State Government in that behalf prescribe and in
any such cas~ the occupancy shall be held only for the period and
subject to the condition~ so prescribed. Rule 32 of the Rules pro- D
vides that land may be given free of price and free of revenue,
whether in perpetuity or for a term, for any of the purposes specified
in column 1 referred to in the table given below that rule viz. for
sites for the construction at the cost of a municipality, a panchayat or
other local bodies of schools or colleges etc., for sites used or to be
used in connection with any scheme under the Community Develop· E
ment Programme, for sites used or to be used as market yards under
the management of market committees established under the Gujarat
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 etc. Rule 35 of the Rules
empowers the Collector to exempt from payment of land ·revenue
without any limit lands used for sites of hospitals, dispensaries,
schools etc. Under Rule 41 of the Rules, land situated in the bed of
a river !J.nd not included in a survey number can, save as otherwise
provided in sections 46 and 64, ordinarily be leased annually by
auction to the highest bidder for the term of one year or such further
period as the Co_!lector may think fit and the accepted bid should be
deemed to be the land revenue chargeable on such land. The G
language of this rule also enables the State Government to dispose
of snch lands in any other equitable way. This Rule, however, does
not apply to a land which is situated in the bed of a river and which
is included in a survey number. Rule 42 of the Rules empowers the
Collector to dispose of unoccupied land required or suitable for
building sites or other non-agricultural purpose either by public auction H
or in his discretian by private arrangement either upon payment of a
price fixed by him, or without charge, as he deems fit.
1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R.

A These and the other provisions of the Code and the Rules made
thereunder show that it is open to the Collector to dispose of unoccu-
pied lands belonging to the Government either for cnltivation or for
any other purpose in favour of individuals or aggregate of individuals
either free of charge or at an upset price to be fixed by him or by public
auction. A historical review of the several GoverllII1ent orders passed
B under the Code shows that lands belonging to Government had been •
set apart free of charge for several public purposes such as free pastu-
rage, burial grounds, roads, religious institutions, village sites, cattle
stands, dhobies' ghats, potters'. grounds, threshing floors etc. Land
revenue was remitted when there were drought conditions. Forfeited

•holdings were often given back to defaulters who had !J.Ot paid land
revenue once again on payment of arrears out of compassion. Tagavi
loans were given by Govefl!illent to occupants to improve lands. Some
of the Government orders relating to grants of lands to private indi-
viduals may be stated here by way of illustration. An order passed
by the Government of Bombay in the year 1931 authorised grant of
D laods to kolis and other wild tribes in jungle tracts without payment
of any occupancy price. Another order passed in 1924 directed
that grants of waste lands to members belonging depr~sed classes
should be liberally made. An order of the year 1925 for grants of lands
to co-operative societies free of charge. Liberal grants of lands were
made to military pensioners at concessional rates. All these orders
E were passed during the British rule by the State Government in exer-
cise of its powers under the Code. The dominant purpose of the Code,
therefore, appears to be public welfare, even though land revenue which
was recoverable under the Code constituted an important source of

, revenue of the State Govemmenl

After India became independent, land reforms measures had to be
introduced by the States in India to prevent concentration of land in
a few hands and to impose ceiling on the extent of land that could
be held by an individual or a familY, to take possession of land from
individuals or families which was in excess of the ceiling so imposed
G and to distribute such excess land amongst persons belonging to Sche-
duled Castes, Scheuled Tribes and other weaker sections of society.
All these laws were made in order to implement the Directive Princi-
ples of State Policy contained in Articles 38, 39 and 46 of the Consti-
tution by strengthening agrarian economy. Never before was there a
greater need as during the post-Constitution period for administering
H land revenue laws in an equitable manner so that the ecnnomic interests
of the weaker sections of the society and in particular ·of members
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are protected
GUJARAT v. V. D. CHATURBHAI (Venkataramiah, !.) 1197

aud promoted. It has to, be mentioned here that there is no provision A
in the Code or the Rules made thereunder which prohibits disposal
-0f occupancy rights or lease-hold rights in respect of unoccupied lands
in any manner other than public auction. When it is felt that it is
necessary to acquire excessive lands in the hands of private individuals
for distribution amongst the landless and other deserving persons, it
" is equally necessary to observe the same rule while distributing the B
land which belongs to the State Government. In view of the fore-
going, we are of the view that the conclusion reached by the High
Conrt that the basic scheme of the Code was the realization of land
revenue by disposing of unoccupied lands by public anction alone
appears to be baseless. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree that
the impugned Resolution which provides for the disposal of bhatha c
lands amongst bonafide agriculturists, harijans, adivasis and backward
elass people and other persons mentioned therein without resorting to
public auction but by having recourse to the procednre set out in it is
contrary to the letter a'nd the spirit of the code. We, therefore, set
aside the finding of the High Court on the above question.
D
We shall now proceed to examine the question whether the im-
pugned Resolution is violative of Article 14 of the Con3titution. The
grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were denied the oppor-
tunity to acquire the lease-hold rights at the public auction as a con-
sequence of the policy of disposal of bhatha lands contained in the
Resolution. The finding of the High Court on the above question E
appears to have been influenced by its view on the object with which
the Code was enacted and this becomes obvious from the following
observation of the High Court : -
"As we have already pointed out, the object sought to
be achieved is completely a. collateral object and the criteria
which are adopted for the alleged classification viz. the mem-
bership of the co-operative society and the persons being
Harijans, Adivasis or backward class people have no rational
nexus whatever to the object of augmenting land revenue,
which would be the implicit object underlying the entire Code,
including this statutory power of disposal of the said lands
G
for the benefit of the public. The C-Ode never contemplated
any exclusion of persons when such statutory power was
sought to be exercised by the State by any statutory order.
Therefore, this statutory order clearly violates Article 14 of
the Constitution and even on that ground it must be struck
down."
H
For the purpose of determining the question whether the impugned
Resolution is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or not, it is
1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.11.

necessary to examine whether the classification adopted by the State
Government is based upon some intelligible differentia which distin-
guishes individuals and co-operative societies in whose favour grants
of lease-hold rights in bhatha lands are required to be made by the
Collector from others and whether the said classification bears any
reasonable relation to the object underlying the Code. The High Court
I
has proceeded on the basis that the classification made by the Resolu-
tion does not have any rational relation to the object of the Code which
according to it was realization of revenue and nothing more than that.
We have explained earlier that the object of the Code is to make pro-
vision for an equitable distribution of available land amongst persons
C who are in need of it. As mentioned earlier, the State Government is
under an obligation to ensure that the ownership and the control of
material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-
serve the co=on good and the operation of the economic system does
not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to
the co=on detriment. In India which is predominantly an agricultural
D country, land forms the most important means of production. It is
well known that unemployment among the masses is on the increase
because employment opportnnities are not increasing at the same rate
at which the population is increasing. Consequently we find in India
to day a large number of landless persons and persons with unecono-
mic holdings in villages who are either unemployed or under-employed.
E It is also equally well-known that persons belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes form the bulk of such landless persons
or owners of uneconomic holdings who are in need of special care.
It is also the settled policy of the State Governments to encourage
co-operative movement, which is embarked upon with a view to pre-
venting exploitation of ecbnomically weaker sections of society by
F others. The State Government in the instant case appears to have
passed the impugned Resolution in order to grant leases in respect of
bhatha lands in favour of landless persons or persons having very
small extents of land or persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Sche-
duled Tribes. and backward classes and members of co-operative
G societies at a reasonable rent without being put to the necessity of
offering bids at a public auction where it is well known that only
moneyed persons can become successful bidders. The impugned
Resolution lays down the procedure to be followed in the disposal of
lease-hold rights in respect of bhatha lands. It does not relate to all
unoccupied lands available in the State of Gujarat. The total extent
H of bhatha lands available in the State of Gujarat when compared with
other available unoccupied lands may be a very small extent. The
writ petitioners on whom the burden of proving that the impugned
) GUJARAT v. V. D. CHATURBHAI (Venkataramiah, !.) 1199

Resolution is discriminatory have not furnished any information about A
the extent of Bhatha lands available for disposal Clauses ( 1) and
(2) of the Resolution provide that the existing leases held by co-
operative societies should be renewed on their expiry only in favour
of the members of such co-operative societies subject to certain condi-
tions for a further period of ten years on payment of revised rent which
should be fixed on the basis of the factors referred to therein. Clause B
(3) of the Resolution, provides that leases of bhatha lands granted in
favour of individuals should not be renewed on their expiry but they
should be disposed of in favour of bonafide agriculturists who belong
to the weaker sections of society and co-operative farming societies
on the basis of priority set out in clause (5) thereof. The rent payable
by them should again be determined in accordance with the instruc-
c
tions given in the Resolution. The Resolution is designed to bring
about distribution of agricultural lands as best to subserve the common
good thus eliminating concentration of wealth and means of produc-
tion to the common detriment. It helps persons, who are -in need of
lands for their bare maintenance and who have otherwise no chance
D
of getting them, to acquire lands at a low rate of rent. -

The classification made in the impugned Resolution of persons or
co-operative societies who are eligible to secure grants of lease hold
rights, according to us, bears a reasonable relation to the object with
which the Code is enacted. It cannot be characterised as arbitrary.
We do not find that there is any infirmity in the above classification. E
The Resolution aims at bringing about social and economic justice and
assists people who are not strong enough to secure lease-hold rights of
a public auction for purposes of cultivation. The leases to be granted
are not for any unlimited period. At the end of the period prescribed
in the leases, it will be open to the Collector to dispose them of afresh.
In the above circumstances, we hold that the High Court was in error
in holding that the Resolution was violative of Article 14 of the Con-
stitution.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow these appeals, set aside the
common judgment and order passed by the High Court and dismiss G
the writ petitions. We feel that in the circumstances of the case, the
State Government should pay the costs of respondent No. 1 in Civil
Appeal No. 284 of 1970. We order accordingly. The other parties
shall bear their own costs.

N.V.K. Appeals allowed. R

22-138 SCI/80