1964 (8) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the transfer of shamlat deh owned by the proprietors to the village Panchayat for the purposes of management in the manner described above and the conferment of proprietary rights on non proprietors in respect of lands in abadi deh is illegal and the several provisions of law allowing this to be done are ultra vires Art. 31 inasmuch as no compensation is payable or whether the law and the action taken are protected by Art. 31-A? Held that - If agrarian reforms are to succeed mere distribution of land to the landless is not enough. There must be a proper planning of rural economy and conditions and a body like the village Panchayat is best designed to promote rural welfare than individual owners of small portions of lands Further the village Panchayat is an authority for purposes of Part III as was conceded before us and it has the protection of Art 3 1 -A because of this character even if the taking over of sham lat deh amounts to acquisition. In our opinion the High Court was right in deciding as it did on this part of the case. With respect to abadi deh the same reasoning must apply The settling of a body of agricultural artisans (such as the village carpenter the village blacksmith the village tanner farrier wheelwright barber washerman etc.) is a part of rural planning and can be comprehended in a scheme of agrarian reforms. It is a trite saying that India lives in villages and a scheme to make villages self-sufficient cannot but be regarded as part of the larger reforms which consolidation of holdings fixing of ceilings on lands distribution of surplus lands and utilising of vacant and waste lands contemplate. The four Acts namely the Con- solidation Act the Village Panchayat Act the Common Lands Regulation Act and the Security of Tenure Act are a part of a general scheme of reforms and any modification of rights such as the present had the protection of Art. 31-A. The High Court was thus right in its conclusion on this part of the case also. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of shamlat deh land to the village Panchayat.
2. Validity of the conferment of proprietary rights on non-proprietors in abadi deh lands.
3. Constitutionality of the Amending Act 27 of 1960 and its compatibility with Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.
4. Validity of Rules 16(i) and (ii).
5. Constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the transfer of shamlat deh land to the village Panchayat:
The appellants challenged the transfer of shamlat deh lands, which were commonly owned by proprietors, to the village Panchayat for management and various purposes. They argued that this transfer was illegal and violated their property rights as no compensation was provided. The Court, however, upheld the transfer, noting that such actions were part of a broader scheme of agrarian reform and rural development. The Court emphasized that the village Panchayat, being an authority for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution, had the protection of Article 31-A, even if the taking over of shamlat deh amounted to acquisition.

2. Validity of the conferment of proprietary rights on non-proprietors in abadi deh lands:
The appellants contended that the distribution of abadi deh lands to non-proprietors was illegal. The Court rejected this argument, stating that settling agricultural artisans in villages was a part of rural planning and agrarian reforms. The Court highlighted that making villages self-sufficient and improving rural health and social conditions were essential parts of the redistribution of holdings and open lands. Thus, the conferment of proprietary rights on non-proprietors was upheld as part of the larger scheme of agrarian reforms.

3. Constitutionality of the Amending Act 27 of 1960 and its compatibility with Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that the Amending Act 27 of 1960 violated Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. The Court, however, held that the amendments were protected by Article 31-A, which was designed to save legislation effecting agrarian reforms. The Court noted that the amendments were part of a general scheme of rural planning and development, which included equitable distribution of land and bettering rural health and social conditions. The Court also pointed out that the amendments had retrospective effect, further solidifying their validity.

4. Validity of Rules 16(i) and (ii):
The appellants challenged Rules 16(i) and (ii) on the grounds that they were ultra vires. The Court noted that Rule 16(ii) had been declared ultra vires in Munsha Singh v. State of Punjab, but the Second Amending Act (27 of 1960) had given legal cover to these rules by including relevant provisions in the Consolidation Act. The Court upheld the validity of these rules, stating that they were part of the broader scheme of agrarian reforms and rural planning.

5. Constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act:
The appellants also challenged the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The Court upheld the Act, noting that it regulated the rights in shamlat deh and abadi deh lands and vested the management of these lands in the village Panchayat. The Court emphasized that the Act was part of the general scheme of agrarian reforms and rural development, which aimed at equitable distribution of land and bettering rural health and social conditions. The Court also referred to previous judgments that had upheld the validity of similar legislation, reinforcing the constitutionality of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the transfer of shamlat deh lands to the village Panchayat, the conferment of proprietary rights on non-proprietors in abadi deh lands, the Amending Act 27 of 1960, Rules 16(i) and (ii), and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The Court emphasized that these actions and laws were part of a broader scheme of agrarian reforms and rural development, which aimed at equitable distribution of land and bettering rural health and social conditions. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →