DATTATRAYA GOVIND MAHAJAN STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH STATE OF PUNJAB NAGAORAO MAROTRAO INGOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:RAJESH PACHAURI:SUCHA SINGHS:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 1132-1164 of 1976. This is a group of appeals preferred by certain landholders in the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975), the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act 47 of 1957) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976). The Principal Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature in implementation of the Directive Principles of State Police contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution. It imposed a maximum ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and provided for the acquisition of land held in excess of the ceiling and for the distribution of such excess land to landless and other persons. During the subsequent years, various amendments were made in the Principal Act from time to time and the Principal Act, as amended upto that date, was included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. Thereafter certain further amendments were made in the Principal Act and the amending Acts were also included in the Ninth Schedule as a result of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975. Then came three major amending Acts which, according to the appellants, introduced the vice of unconstitutionality in the Principal Act. Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975 effected radical amendments in the Principal Act by lowering ceiling on agricultural holding and creating an artificial family unit for fixing ceiling on holding of agricultural land. This amending Act was followed by Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 which effected certain further changes in the Principal Act but these are not very material for the purpose of the present appeals. Since these three amending Acts were enacted after the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975, they were included in the Ninth Schedule along with certain other enactments by the Constitution (fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976. The result was that the Principal Act, as amended by all the subsequent amending Acts including Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 was protected against invalidation under Article 31-B.

(2.) The appellants are landholders in the State of Maharashtra and since and effect of the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Mah. Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 was to expropriate a part of the lands belonging to them, they preferred writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of the Principal Act as amended by these amending Acts on various grounds. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeals to set out the different grounds on which the constitutional challenge was based, since none of these grounds has been pressed before us save one based on contravention of the second proviso to cl. (1) of Article 31A. The only contention that has been urged before us on behalf of the appellants is that the Principal Act, as it stands after its amendment by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 is void, is so far as it creates an artificial family unit and fixes a ceiling on holding of land by such family unit, since it is violative of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A and is not saved by the immunising provision enacted in Art. 31-B. This contention was also urged before the High Court but it was negatived on the grounds that Art. 31B afforded complete immunity to the provisions of the Principal Act. We may make it clear at this stage that for the sake of convenience, when we hereafter refer to the Act, we mean the Principal Act as amended by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976. The appellants in the present appeals assail this view taken by the High Court and the only question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned Act, in so far as it creates an artificial concept of family unit for fixing ceiling on holding of land bysuch family unit, is in conflict with the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A and if it is, whether it is protected under Article 31-B Though logically the first part of the question as to infraction of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A should receive our consideration earlier in point of time, it would be convenient first to examine the second part of the question, for, if we are of the view that Article 31-B immunises the Principal Act against attack on the ground of violation of the second proviso to Article 31A, it would become unnecessary to consider whether in fact there is any infraction of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A. But before we examine the scope and applicability of Article 31B in the present case, it would be desirable to refer to a few relevant provisions of the Principal Act.

(3.) The Preamble and the long title of the Principal Act show that it was enacted to impose a maximum ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for the acquisition of land held in excess of ceiling and for the distribution of such land to landless and other persons with a view to securing the distribution of agricultural land in a manner which would best subserve the common good of the people. Section 2 contains various definitions of which only one is material, namely that contained in sub-section (11A). That sub-section defines 'family unit' to mean a family unit as explained in Section 4. Section 3 imposes a prohibition on holding of land in excess of ceiling area and so far as material, it reads as follows :