TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess persons, agricultural labourers and small holders) or for the allotment of such surplus agricultural lands the integrity of which is maintained in compact blocks to a department of Government or to cooperative farming societies or corporations owned or controlled by the State, for ensuring the full and efficient use thereof and to provide for other consequential and incidental matters hereinafter appearing? 2. The part of Section 6 of the Act with which we are especially concerned provides : 6(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any agreement, usage or decree or order of a Court, with effect from the appointed day, no person shall, subject to the provisions of Sub Sections (2), (3), (3A) and (3B) be entitled to hold, whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area. (2) Where an individual, who holds land, is a member of a family, not being a joint family which consists of the individual and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters, irrespective of whether the family also includes any major son, and land is also separately h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly situated land being higher. 4. The question which has been raised before us is whether, apart from variations in the ceiling area imposed by statute, there can be a deprivation of rights of individuals holding property separately, in exercise of their separate individual rights, by grouping them as members of one family so as to compel them to take only one unit of land in such a way that their total holding does not exceed the ceiling limit which is the same for both individuals as well as families as defined by the Act with some allowances for large families. This raises a further question : What is the unit for which this ceiling is prescribed? 5. It is evident that Section 6 conceives of each person holding land as a single unit whose holding must not exceed the ceiling limit. Section 2, Sub-section (21) says : 'person' includes a joint family; . Thus, the term person is not, strictly speaking, defined in the Act. Section-2, Sub-section (21) only clarifies that the term person will include a joint family also. It certainly does not exclude an individual from being a person in the eyes of law. 6. This has been done apparently to make it clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possessed by every person, whether artificial or natural. In other words, if Section 6(2) of the Act was not there, each individual member of a family would have been entitled to hold land upto the ceiling limit if it was his OF her legally separate property. This follows from the obvious meaning of the term person as well as the inclusive definitions given both in the Act under consideration and in the General Clauses Act. 10. Spouses and minor children, as natural persons, have not been debarred from holding their separate rights to land by the provisions of the Act. It is not the object of the Act to do that. The object of the Act, as set out above, is two fold : firstly, to limit the ceiling area of each holder; and, secondly, to acquire what falls beyond the ceiling limit so that the State may distribute it to more needy persons. It is not disputed that compensation is provided for acquisition of what exceeds the ceiling area in every case. As was held by this Court in H.H. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala [1973] Su. S.C.R. 1 the amount of compensation fixed cannot be questioned. Therefore, no provision of the Act could be or is challenged on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso certainly protects, and, indeed, confers certain rights upon individuals to an amount of compensation. That is its direct effect. 13. The argument on behalf of the appellant, as we understand it is that, although, an alteration of the ceiling limit for each person directly by prescribing its statutory limit is permissible, yet, if it is not done directly by changing the ceiling limit for each person but by introducing a concept of person , contrary to the concept in the provisions of the second proviso to Article 31A(1), it becomes a prohibited colourable device for getting round the second proviso to Article 31A(1). It is urged that the effect of the amended Section 6 of the Act is to change the ceiling limit for some persons only by altering the legal and constitutional concept of a person. 14. We do not find any fixed concept of person anywhere. No doubt the concept is wide so that it could be contended that it should not be narrowed down or confined. But does Section 6(2) do that? Section 6(2) does not either disable a husband or wife from owning or holding their separate properties separately. It does not merge or destroy their separate legal personalities. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Kerala and Anr. [1973]1SCR326 where it was held by this Court (at p. 314) : It was not disputed that the ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act was within the competence of the legislature, to fix; nor was it contended that the ceiling fixed by the original unamended Act by itself debarred the legislature from further reducing the ceiling limit so fixed. Prior to the amendment undoubtedly no land within the personal cultivation of the holder under the unamended Act within the ceiling limit fixed thereby could be acquired without payment of compensation according to the market value, but once ceiling limit was changed by the amended Act the second Proviso to Article 31A(1) must be held to refer only to the new ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act. The ceiling limit originally fixed ceased to exist for future the moment it was replaced by the amended Act. The prohibition contained in the second proviso operates only within the ceiling limit fixed under the existing law, at the given time. It is true that the new ceiling limit was fixed contemporaneously with the acquisition of the land in excess of that ceiling limit. But it was not contended that a law so fixing the ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislative entries in the 7th Schedule. But, to secure the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution, resort to the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution is imperative. These differences do not mean that legislation falling under any part of Article 31A(1) of the Constitution, including the provisos, cannot receive also the protection contemplated by Article 31B of the Constitution. There is nothing in our Constitution to bar any statute from receiving a dual protection, so to speak, of both Article 31A(1) and 31B of the Constitution if the conditions of each are satisfied. 19. It is clear to us that the proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution confers certain rights upon individuals and protects them from constitutionally illegal invasion. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the protective umbrella of Article 31B does not shield the impugned provisions against an attack based upon the limits imposed by the second proviso to Article 31A(1) on legislative power. The argument overlooks certain obvious answers : firstly, that limits on legislative powers, imposed by Part III of the Constitution, do have the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
