Holding

The 5th Amendment Act is a valid measure of agrarian reform and is protected by Article 31A, even though it does not contain a ceiling provision.

Summary

The case concerned the constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (5th Amendment) Act, 1976, which replaced Chapter III of the 1964 Tenancy Act with Chapter IIA, vesting land in tenants-in-possession for a price and removing landlords' limited right of personal cultivation. Landlords challenged the amendment as violative of Articles 14 and 19 and argued that, because it lacked any ceiling on land holdings, it could not be considered a measure of agrarian reform and thus was not protected by Article 31A. The Supreme Court held that a law can qualify as agrarian reform even without a ceiling provision, and the 5th Amendment Act therefore falls within the protection of Article 31A. Consequently, the amendment was upheld, the earlier judgment of the Judicial Commissioner was set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The civil appeals were allowed, and each party bore its own costs.

Issues considered

The amendment Act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
The presence of a land‑holding ceiling is essential for a law to qualify as a measure of agrarian reform under Article 31A.
Whether the 5th Amendment Act is a measure of agrarian reform and thus protected by Article 31A.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19, s. Article 31A(l)(a), s. Article 38, s. Article 39, s. Ninth Schedule
Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (5th Amendment) Act, 1976s. 13A, s. 18A, s. 18J, s. 18K, s. 4
Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964s. 13A, s. 18A, s. 18J, s. 18K, s. 4, s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

agrarian reformland ceilingArticle 31Atenancyconstitutional validityNinth Schedulelandlord-tenant rightscompensation

Judgment

UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AND ANR.
A
v.
\. LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL ETC. ETC.

AND

SMT. LAKSHMI BAI PATIL B
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

~- JULY 23, 1990

[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND T. KOCHU THOMMEN, JJ.]
c
Constitution of India: Article 3 JA( l)(a)-Provisions fixing ceil-
ing-Whether essential in a statute concerning agrarian reform .
.... Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Chapter
!IA-Section IBA-I-Amendment Act, 1976-Whether constitutionally D
valid.

The respondents in the civil appeals and the petitioner in the writ
petition were landlords in Goa, whose lands were in the possession of
the cultivating tenants. Prior to the enactment of the Goa, Daman and

-- Din Agricultural Tenancy (5th Amendment) Act, 1976 the nature of the
rights of the landlords and tenants were governed by the Goa. Daman
and Din Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. By Chapter III oftht 1964 Act
E

the landlord was permitted to resume his land for bona fide personal
~ cultivation, subject to a ceiling. Chapter III, however, was to come into
force only on a notification for the purpose, which was never issued.
). The impugned 5th Amendment omitted Chapter III from the 1964 Act F
and in its place included Chapter IIA. By the provisions of section ISA
) of Chapter HA the land belonging to a landlord not in his cultivating
possession on the tiller's day got transferred to the tenant-in-possession
for a price to be paid to the landlord.

The respondents filed writ applications in the Court of the Judi- G
cial Commissioner challenging the validity of the 5th Amendment Act.
The writ petitions were allowed by the Judicial Commissioner who held
that the Amendment Act violated Articles 14 and 19 of the ConstitUtion
--... and that the protection of Article 3 IA was not available as the scheme of
the Amendment Act did not constitute agrarian reform.
H

497
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

During the pendency of the present appeals the impugned Amend-
A
ment Act along with the main Act were included in the Ninth Schedule
of the Constitution. The writ petition filed in this Court under Article
32 has challenged this constitutional amendment as illegal and ultra
vires.

B Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the respondents.
landlords that f"ixation of ceiling was the heart and soul of agrarian
reform; that provisions regarding ceiling were essential for a statute
enacted as a measure of agrarian reform and in their absence the same
could not claim protection of Article 31A of the Constitution; that in the
absence of provisions for ceiling the impugned Amendment Act had
bestowed undeserved benefit on the tenants at the cost of the landlords,
c without reference to the respective areas in their possession. In this
connection it was submitted that in many a case, a cultivating tenant in
possession of lands under different landlords might be having far larger
area of land than his landlords and there could not be any preference to
clothing such a tenant with title to the land at the cost of his compara-
D tively poor landlords.

A;Jowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petition this Court,

HELD: (1) It is well settled that the protection of Article 31A is
limited to the laws which serve the purpose of agrarian reform. [504D]
E
(2) It cannot be denied that the appropriately enacted statutes
having provisions for f"ixing ceiling of holdings do fall in the category of
legislation for agrarian reform, but that proposition does not say and
cannot be interpreted as holding that f"ixing ceiling areas is a basis and
essential feature of agrarian reform without which a law cannot be •
F included in the category. A proper statute even without including provi-
sions -regarding ceiling may be entitled to the protection of Article 31A -1'
provided it is otherwise a measure of agrarian reform. (505C, FI

Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959]
Supp. 1 SCR 489; Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S.B. Kamble & Ors.,
G [1975] 3 SCR 885 and Ba/madies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1973] 1SCR258, referred to.

(3) The title to the land shall vest in the tiller and the landlord
shall get the compensation. Earlier also his right to resume the land for
personal cultivation was considerably restricted by the provisions of the
H 1964 Act. As a result of the impugned 5th Amendment Act he has been
UNION TERRITORY v. L.N. PATIL 499

divested of this limited right for a price, and the tiller shall no more be
A
I. under a threat of dispossession. The impugned j!rovisions must there-
fore be accepted as a measure ofland reform. [509G-H; 5 IOA]

(4) The argument of the respondents that in absence of provisions
fixing ceiling on the area of land which can.be held by a person a statute
cannot be accepted as a measure of land reform is, accordingly, B
rejected. The 5th Amendment Act is, therefore, entitled to the protec-
tion of Article 3lA and it cannot be struck down on the ground of
f-< violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. [S!OA-B]

Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959]
Supp. l SCR 489; Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must. Mazirunnessa,
[1962] 1 SCR 724; Purushothaman Nambudiri v. The State of Kera/a, c
[1962] Supp. l SCR 753; Fida Ali & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kash-
----.. mir, [1975] 1 SCR 340; Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra, [1977] 2 SCR 790; K.K. Kochuni v. The State of Madras,
[1960] 3 SCR 887 and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr., [1983] l SCR 1000, distinguished. D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
1314 to 1318 of 1979.

Appeals by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated
.-.#
4.4.1979 of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman & Diu in Special E
Civil Application (Writ Petition) Nos. 75. 76, 77 of 1977, 103 and 111 of
1978.

AND

Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988. F

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.V.S. Krishna-
moorthy Iyer, S.S. Ray, Y.S. Chitaley, Joachin Dias, A.B. Nadkami,
Aron Madan, Ms. A. Subhashini, S. Ganesh and R. Swamy for the G
Appellants/Petitioners.

-""'- Manohar S. Usgaocar, F.S. Nariman, G.L. Sangbi, M.N. Phadke,
R.F. Nariman, S.K. Mehta, Atul Nanda, Aman Vachher, Mrs. Nineti
Sharma, S.M. Usgaocar and M.K. Dua for the Respondents.
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
A.V. Rangam, S. Lotlakar, A.N. Rajan and Ms. Sarla Chandra
for the Intervener.

SHARMA, J. The civil.appeals No. !314 to 1318 of 1979 by certifi-
111
cate are directed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of
Goa, Daman and Diu, declaring the Goa, Daman and Diu Agri-
cultural Tenancy (Sth Amendment) Act, 1976, as unconstitutional.
The respondents are landlords in Goa. The lands were in possession of
the tenants who were cultivating the same and paying rent to the
respondents. The respondents were divested of their title in the lands
C by the provisions of the impugned Act which came in force in 1976
vesting the same in the tenants. The respondents filed five writ appli-
cations in the eourt of the Judicial Commissioner challenging the vali-
dity of the Amendment Act. The writ petitions were allowed by the
impugned judgment. It has been held that the Act violates Articles 14
and 19 of the Constitution and the protection of Article 3 lA is not
D available as the scheme of the Act does not constitute agrarian reform.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent-writ
petitioners that the landlords in'Goa are generally small land-holders
and their condition is not better than that of the tenants and in that
view the Act divesting the landlords of their title in the land and veting
P: the same in the tenants suffers from the vice of illegal discrimination.
A similar Act was earlier passed by the Maharashtra Legislature also
'which has been found to be constitutionally valid. The writ petitioners
have, before the court below, successfully argued that the decision in
that case is not applicable inasmuch as the Maharashtra Act contains
provisions fixing ceiling to which the other provisions are subject to,
fl while there is no such restriction in the present Act. The result is that
although the Maharashtra Act had to be upheld as a measure of agra-
rian reform and thus protected by Article 3 lA of the Constitution, the
present Act cannot be so interpreted.

3. During the pendency of these appeals the impugned Amend-
0 ment Act along with the main Act were included in the 9th Schedule of
the Constitution and the assent of the President was received on the
26th of August, 1984. Smt. Lakshmibai Narayan Patil, the writ
petitioner in the three of the cases in the court of Judicial Commis-
sioner (responndent in Civil Appeals No. 1314, 1315 and 1316 of 1979)
has challen)!ed the constitutional amendment as illegal and ultra vires
H by filing an application under Article 32 of the Constitution which has
UNION TERRITORY v. L.N. PATIL (SHARMA, J.] 501

been numbered as Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988.
A
\
4. By the impugned Amendment Act, Chapter IIA has been
included in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), Chapter III has been deleted and
some consequential changes have been m_ade in some other sections.
Chapter IIA deals with "Special rights and privileges of tenants" as B
indicated by the heading. Broadly speaking, by tl]e provisions of s.
18A of this Chapter the land belonging to 1' landlord not in his cultivat-
ing possession on the tiller's day gets transferred to the tenant-in-
possession for a price to be paid to th<; landlord. The expression
'tenant' has been given a larger meaning under the Act by s. 4. By the
second proviso of s. 4 a sub-tenant cultivating any land on or after
l. 7. 1962 has to be deemed to be a lawfully cultivating tenant notwith- c
standing the fact that the creation of sub-tenancy might have been
prohibited by any law, and the tenant prior to the creation of the
sub-tenancy (who may be referred to as intermediary tenant) is not to
be treated as a tenant. The price of the land in question has to be
determined and the payment made in accordance with the provisions D
of Chapter IIA. Separate provisions have been made with respect to
special cases where tenant is a minor or has been evicted by the landlord
before the tiller's day. The provisions of S. 18-J provide for the
resumption and disposal of the land not purchased by the tenant by
reason of purchase being ineffective under s. 18C or s. 18H or due to
the failure of the tenant to take steps under s. 18B within time. A E
revenue officer described as Mamlatdar is vested with the power to
dispose of such land in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of
s. 18J. Such land has to be disposed of in the order of priority, where-
under 75% of such land is to be disposed of by sale to persons belong-
ing to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled .Tribes and thereafter the
remaining land to serving members of the Defence Forces of the F
country or ex-servicemen or freedom fighters who agree to cultivate
the land personally. If the land still remains undisposed of, it" first goes
to agricultural labourers and thereafter to landless persons. If some of
the land still remains available, it has to be sold to a co-operative
farrning society. Section 18-K puts a restriction on transfer of the land
which the tenant acquires by purchase under the Chapter. Only with G
the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar any transfer whether by sale,
gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment can be made.

5. If the land-owner is himself cultivating it, there being no
tenant or a deemed tenant he continues to be in possession without any
.curtailment of his rights. On the other hand, in a case where the tenant H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

after getting a tenancy from the landlord inducts another person as a
A sub-tenant who cultivates the same, the benefits of the impugned pro- (
visions go to him and not to the tenant. The object of the Amending
Act is thus clearly to vest the land in the tiller. The right of any person
to receive merely rent is taken away for a price. The respondents who
are landlords, have challenged the Amendment Act whereby Chapter
B IIA has been inserted in the Act on the ground of illegal discrimina-
tion. The argument is that in absence of provisions for ceiling the
impugned Act bestows undeserved benefit on the tenants at the cost of
'>--')
the landlords, without reference to the respective areas in their posses-
sion. The Amendment was enforced as also the impugned judgment
was delivered before the deletion of Clause (f) of Article 19(1) from
the Constitution and one of the grounds which has been successfully
c urged before the High Court is based on Article 19( l)(f). So far Article
3 lA of the Constitution is concerned, the case of the respondents
which has found favour with the court below is that the provisions of ,,,..._
the impugned Amendment Act cannot be held to be a step by way of
agrarian reforms and, therefore, cannot have the protection of the
t> Article. This is the main thrust of the argument of Mr. R.F. Nariman
in this Court also. He has strenuously contended that for extending the
protection of Article 31A(l)(a) to any particular law it is necessary
that the law contains adequate measure against concentration of
wealth in the hands of a few. It is claimed that fixation of ceiling is the

E
heart and soul of agrarian reform without which it does no: survive.

6. It has been observed in the impugned judgment that from the
--- :
transcripts of newspapers produced by the writ petitioners and the
statements alleged to have been made by the late Chief Minister that
there were very few big land-holders in Goa, it can be assumed that the
landlords in Goa are small holders of land. Certain statements made in
F the affidavit filed before the Court were also referred to in this connec-
tion. An attempt was made in this Court also to urge that there could
not be many big landlords in Goa, and, therefore, their deprivation of
the lands cannot be deemed to be a step towards fair distribution. It
was contended that in many a case, a cultivating tenant in possession
of lands under different landlords may be having far larger area of land
G than his landlords and there cannot be any justification in clothing
such a tenant with title to the land at the cost of his comparatively poor
landlords. The argument proceeded, that so far the holdings of the
tenants are concerned, a necessity of placing ceiling on the holdings
cannot be denied in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State
stating that further legislation for that purpose was in contemplation.
H Mr. R.F. Nariman emphasied the fact that no such law has been
UNION TERRITORY v. L.N. PATIL [SHARMA, J.] 503

brought in force till now. To the last part of the argument it was rightly
A
\ pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the
Amendment Act was struck down by the Judicial Commissioner's
Court as ultra vires, further amendment in the Act by way of introduc-
ing provisions for ceiling had to await this Court's judgment in the
present civil appeals.
B
7. Before proceeding with the main argument of Mr. R.F. Nariman
and the cases relied upon by him, it may be useful to briefly refer to the
nature of the right of the landlords and the tenants under the Act
before the insertion of Chapter IIA by th!! impugned Amendment Act.
The rights of a tenant were heritable and Sections 8 and 9 prohibited
the termination of his tenancy and his eviction except where the
himself surrendered his right to the landlord or where the landlord 'C
established one of the grounds specified in this regard. By an Amend-
ment ·in 1966, -the tenant was given, by s. 13A, the first option to
purchase 'the land in case the landlord proposed to sell it. By Chapter
III the landlord was permitted to resume the land, subject to the
ceiling of an area of 2 hectares in case of paddy land and 4 hectares in D
other lands, on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal culti-
vation; but this right was also dependant on the fulfilment ·of certain
conditions. This Chapter was to come into force orily on a notification
for the purpose which was never issued. By the impugned Amendment
Act this Chapter was omitted from the Act. In effect the right of
resumption contemplated by the Act never vested in the landlords E
before it disappeared from the statute book. It may be stated here that
the 1964 Act is not under attack and the challenge is confined to its 5th
Amendment whereby Chapter IIA has been included and Chapter III

- deleted.

8. The statement of objects and reasons was placed before us F
wherein it has been mentioned that there was a similar legislation in
force in the neighbouring State of Maharashtra. The reference obvi-
ously is to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands {Amendment)
Act, 1956, mentioned in paragraph 2 above, introducing similar
amendments in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948. In Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959] G
Supp 1 SCR 489, the validity of the Act was upheld by a Constitution
Bench of this Court. It has been contended that the Maharashtra
Amending Act including provisions fixing ceiling which effectively
prevented accumulation of large areas of land in possession of the
tenants; and since there is no similar safeguard in "the present 5th
Amendment Act, the aforesaid decision does not ·come to its resc\Je I-I
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

and leads to the conclusion that in absence of similar provisions the
A
Act cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the respondents I
relied upon the observation of several decisions of this Court in
support of his contention that provisions regarding ceiling are essential
for a statute enacted as a measure of agrarian reform and in their
absence the same cannot claim protection of Article 3 lA of the
B Constitution.

9. Article 31A(l)(a) declares that no law providing for "the
acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the
extinction or modification of any such rights'', shall be deemed to be
void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or
abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. The
C 5th Amendment Act has received the assent of the President as
required by the first proviso. The expression 'estate' is undisputedly
applicable in the present case in view of the provisions of clause (2) of
the said Article. Although Article 31A(l)(a) does not by express
language restrict its application to a particular nature of law, it is now
o well settled that the protection of the Article is limited to the laws
which serve the purpose of agrarian reform, and Mr. R.F. Nariman is
right in relying upon the observations at page 901F of the judgment in
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. and Others v. S.B. Kamble and Others,
[ 1975] 3 SCR page 885. The learned counsel has further urged that the
other observations in this judgment support his main argument also
E that in absence of provisions for ceiling a statute cannot be held to be
for agrarian reform. We are unable to agree. In that case the constitu-
tional validity of the Act amending certain provisions of the
Maharashtra Agricultural (Ceiling and Holdings) Act was under
challenge and it was sought to be saved inter alia with the aid of Article
31A. While discussing the scope of Article 31A, the Court at page
F 902F relied upon the decision in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and
Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1973] 1 SCR 258, in the following
terms:
-
"In the case of Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v.
State of Tamil Nadu it was held while dealing with the
G provisions of Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act that the object and general
scheme of the Act was to abolish intermediaries between
the state and the cultivator and to help the actual cultivator
by giving him the status of direct relationship between him-
self and the state. The Act, as such, in its broad outlines
H was held to be a measure of agrarian reform and protected
by article 3 lA."
UNION TERRITORY v. L.N. PATIL (SHARMA, J.] 505

At page 903H it was observed that in a sense agrarian reform is wider
\ than land reform. At page 905 the conclusion was summarised under 8
A
'

heads, and Mr. R.F. Nariman strongly relied on the last proposition
stating,

"(8) A provision fixing ceiling area and providing for the
disposal of surplus land in accordance with the rules is a B
measure of agrarian reform.''

It cannot be denied that the appropriately enacted statutes having
provisions for fixing ceiling of holdings do fall in the category of legis-
lation for agrarian reform, but the proposition relied upon, does not
say and cannot be interpreted as holding that it is such an essential
feature of agrarian reform without which a law cannot be included in c
that category. The observations at page 902F in respect of the judg-
ment in Balmadies Plantations case, quoted earlier rather negative
such an assumption.

10. The case of Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi (supra) has not only o
been distinguished in the impugned judgment but has been relied upon
for supporting the writ petitioner's argument. Reliance has been
placed on the observations at page 495 of the reported judgment to the
effect that the object of the Maharashtra Act, which was under con-
sideration in that case, was to bring about such distribution of the
agricultural lands as best to subserve the common good and this object E
was sought to be achieved by fixing ceiling on areas of holdings. It,
however, does not follow that fixing ceiling area of land which can be
held by a person is a basic and essential requirement of land reform.
Since the challenge against the Maharashtra Act was being directed to
the provisions fixing ceiling it became necessary to consider and decide
the effect of those provisions pointedly. But on a careful consideration F
of the entire judgment, there does not remain any element of doubt
that a proper statute even without including provisions regarding ceiling
may be entitled to the protection of Article 3 lA provided it is
otherwise a measure of agrarian reform. As mentioned earlier, the
Court was deciding the question of constitutional validity of the 1956
Act which amended the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act G
enacted in 1948. The original 1948 Act did not contain the provisions
of ceiling which were later introduced by the impugned amendment. If
the stand of the respondents be assumed to be correct, the 1948 Act
could not have been in.absence of the provisions of ceiling, held to be a
step in agrarian reform. But the Court at page 492 stated that:
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1990] 3 S.C.R.
"The 1948 Act had been passed by the State Legislature as
A
a measure of agrarian reform .... " (

With respect to the 1956 Amendment Act, it was said at page 493 that,

"With a view to achieve the objective of establishing
B a socialistic pattern of society in the State within the mean-
ing of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, a further
measure of agrarian reform was enacted by the State Legis- '-!
Iature, being the impugned Act, hereinbefore referred to,
which was designed to bring about such distribution of the
ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to sub-
serve the common goods thus eliminating concentration of
c wealth and means of production to the common detriment."
(emphasis added)

the use of the expression "further measure' as mentioned above and
the repetition of the said expression again at page 495 emphasise the
b fact that the original Act also was a measure of agrarian reform. Thus
the decision, instead of helping the respondents lends support to the
appellants' argument.

11. Mr. R.F. Nariman cited a number ofotber decisions dealing
with the validity of provisions fixing ceiling and the Court upheld those
E provisions on the ground that they were measures of agrarian reform,
but they do not support the reverse proposition as put forward on
behalf of the respondents. All these decisions are, therefore, clearly
distinguishable and we will mention briefly some of them which were
heavily relied on by Mr. Nariman.

F 12. In the case of Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must. Ma:drunnessa,
I 1962] 1 SCR 724, writ petitions were filed in the High Court challeng-
ing the validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act,
1957. The High Court in dismissing the petitions held that the
impugned Act was protected by Article 3 lA as it was a measure of
agrarian reforms and imposed limits on lands to be held by persons in
G order to bring about its equitable distribution. The main question
which was canvassed before this Court was whether the expression
"the rights in relation to an estate" in the Article could cover the
impugned Act, and it was answered in the affirmative by holding that
the said expression is of a very wide amplitude. At page 729 this Court
observed thus:
H
UNION TERRITORY v. L.N. PATIL [SH;\RMA, JJ 507

"This Article has been construed by this Court on several
occasions in dealing with legislative measures of agrarian A
reforms. The object of such reforms generally is to abolish
the intermediaries between the State and the cultivator and
to help the actual cultivator by giving him the status of
direct relationship between himself and the State."
B.
The 5th Amendment Act impugned in the cases before us satisfies this
test. Similar was the position in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. The
State of Kera/a, [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 753. The case of Fida Ali and
Others v. State of Jamlllu and Kashmir, [ 1915-l I SCR 340. was also
considering a statute providing a scheme for agrarian reform which
included provisions in respect of ceiling. While upholding the Act the
provisions fixing celling were upheld but the other observations in the c
judgment clearly indicate that the same cannot be assumed to be a
condition precedent. Personal cultivation by the holder of land was
emphasised as an important aspect in the following words at page
345G:

"The golden web, throughout the warp and woof of
the Act, is the feature of personal cultivation of the land.
The expression 'personal cultivation' which runs through
sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is defined with care under section
2(7) in a detailed manner with a proviso and six explanations.
E
From a review of the foregoing provisions it is ob-
vious that the Act contains a clear programme of agrarian
reforms intaking stock of the land in the State which is not
in personal cultivation (section 3) and which though in
personal cultivation is in excess of the ceiling area (section .JI.··
F
+ In the ultimate paragraph of the judgment it was pointed that for
framing a scheme for agrarian reforms it is not necessary or feasible to
follow a set pattern in different parts of the country. It was observed,

"On the other hand, the predominant object underly-
ing the provisions of the Act is agrarian reforms. Agrarian 6
reforms naturally cannot take the same pattern throughout
the country. Besides the availability of land for the pur-
pose, limited in 8cope in the nature of things, the scheme
has to fit in with the local conditions, variability of climate,
rainfall, peculiarity of terrain, suitability and profitability
of multiple crop patterns, vulnerability of floods and so H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

many other factors in formulating a scheme of agrarian
A
reforms suitable to a particular State''.

The decision, therefore, indicates that a flexible approach has to be
adopted in deciding as to the nature of agrarian reform to be taken,
rather than laying down a strait jacket rule for universal application.
B The observations in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Another, [ 1977] 2 SCR 790, were also made whi:e
examining an Act fixing ceiling of holdings and in justification of the
impugned provisions it was observed that the policy in this regard was
initiated following the report of the Agricultural Labour Inquiry con-
ducted in the 1960s and in implementation of this policy the Act under
C consideration was passed. The implication is that the fixation of ceiling
was not essentially involved in agrarian reform but it had to be
resorted to in the State of Maharashtra following the conclusion
arrived at in the Agricultural Labour Inquiry.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed two
D cases wherein Article 3 IA was held to be inapplicable. In K.K.
Kochuni and Others v. The State of Madras and Others, [1960] 3 SCR
887, the question of Article 3 IA did arise but in absolutely different
context. The immediate predecessor of the petitioner K.K. Kochini
was the sthanee of the properties attached to the various sthanams, held
by him. On his death in 1925, the petitioner being the senior member
E became the sthanee and the respondents No. 2 to 17 being the junior
members of the tarwad did not get any interest in the properties. In an
earlier litigation which was commenced following the passing of an Act
in 1932, the petitioners' exclusive right was established up to the Privy
Council stage. It was held that the Members of the tarwad had no
interest therein. After the title of the sthanee was thus established, the
F Madras Legislature passed the impugned Act in 1955, which declared
that every sthanam satisfying certain conditions mentioned in the Act +
would be deemed and would always be deemed to have properties
belonging to the tarwad. The petitioner K.K. Kochuni challenged the
Act as ultra vires before this Court by an application under Article 32
of the Constitution. Two other petitions were also filed, one by his
a wife and daughters with respect to certain other properties gifted to
them and the other by his son. In support of the constitutional validity
of the Act it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitio-
ner's sthanam was an estate within the meaning of Article 3 IA and,
therefore, enjoyed the protection under that Article. The argument
was that a law relating inter se the rights "of a proprietor in his estate
H' and the junior members of his family was also covered by the wide
UNION TERRITORY v. L.N. PATIL (SHARMA, J.) 509

pharseology used in clause (2)(b) of Article 3 lA. This Court rejected A
\ the plea, holding that:

"The definition of "estate" refers to an existing law relat-
ing to land tenures in a particular area indicating thereby
that the Article is concerned only with the land tenure
described as an "estate". The inclusive definition of the B
rights of such an estate also enumerates the rights vested in
the proprietor and his subordinate tenure-holders. The last
clause in that definition, viz., that those rights also include
the rights or privileges in respect of land revenue. empha-
sizes the fact that the Article is concerned with land tenure.
It is, therefore, manifest that the said Article deals with a
tenure called "estate" and provides for its acquisition or c
the extinguishment or modification of the rights of the
land-holders or the various subordinate tenure-holders in
respect of their rights in relation to the estate. The contrary
view would enable the State to divest a proprietor of his
estate and vest it in another without reference to any agra- D
rian reform. It would also enable the State tn compel a
proprietor to divide his properties, though self-acquired,
between himself and other members of his family or create
interest therein in favour of persons other than tenants who
had none before."
E
The Court, thus held that Article 31A (l)(a) will not apply to an Act
which does not contemplate or see to regulate the rights inter se bet-
ween the landlords and tenants leaving all their characteristics intact.
The Court further considered the judgment in Sri Ram Ram. Narain's
case (supra) and distinguished it on the ground that under the Bombay
Act certain rights were conferred on the tenants in respect of their F
tenements which they did not have before. The other case of Sanjeev
Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and
Another, (1983] 1 SCR 1000, relied upon by Mr. Nariman is also of no
help as the same was dealing with certain legislation in regard to mines
and minerals. The question of interpreting Article 31A (l)(a) did not
arise there at all. G

14. As has been discussed above. the title to the land shall vest
in the tiller and the landlord shall get the compensation. Earlier also
his right to resume the land for personal cultivation was considerably
restricted by the provisions .of the 1964 Act. As a result of the
impugned Amendment Act he has been divested of this limited right H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A for a price, and the tiller shall no more be under a threat of disposses-
sion. The impugned provisions must therefore be accepted as a
measure of land reform. We reject the argument of the respondents
that in absence of provisions fixing ceiling on the area of land which
can be held by a person a statute cannot be accepted as a measure of
land reform. The 5th Amendment Act is, therefore, entitled to the
B protection of Article 3 lA and it cannot be struck down on the ground
of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The judgment of
the Judicial Commissioner declaring the Act as ultra vires is accord-
ingly set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are
dismissed. Consequntly it is not necessary to deal with the writ peti-
tion (W.P. No. 864 of 1988) filed in this Court under Article 32 chal-
c lenging the inclusion of the impugned Act in the 9th Schedule of the
Constitution and the same is rejected.

15. In the result, Civil Appeals No. 1314-1318 of 1979 are
allowed, but, in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear
their own costs throughout.
D
R.S.S. Appeals allowed Petition dismissed.