SANTHANAKRISHNA ODAYAR Vs. VAITHILINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in these petitions is the validity of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Ordinance 4 of 1952 which was modified by Ordinances 5 and 6 of 1952 and ultimately replaced by Act 14 of 1952. The petitioners are Mirasdars or land owners in the District of Tanjore and these are applications by them under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari to quash various orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer acting under the provisions of the Ordinance and Act aforesaid. W. P. No. 859 of 1952 and 78 of 1953 are against orders passed under Section 6 of the Act directing the reinstatement of tenants; W. P. No. 875 of 1952 in against refusal to pass an order in ejectment under Section 10 of the Act; W. P. No. 788 of 1952 is against an order awarding compensation under Section 12(4) of the Act; and W. P. Nos. 880 of 1952 and 6 of 1953 are against orders adjudicating disputes between landlords and tenants under Section 13 of the Act. Apart from disputing the correctness of the orders on their merits, the petitioners raise the contention that some at least pf the provisions of the Act are repugnant to Articles 19(1)(f), 31(2) and 14 of the Constitution and therefore, void under Article 13. We heard in the first instance arguments of counsel on the constitutional issue relating to the validity of the legislation, reserving considerations of the other questions for a further hearing and we now proceed to express our opinion thereon.

(2.) For a proper understanding of the provisions of the Act it will be useful to state the facts which form the background for this legislation. The District of Tanjore forms part of the Cauveri delta and is the richest rice-producing region in the State of Madras, being popularly and aptly known as the "granary of South India". The area normally cultivated with paddy is 13,40,180 acres and the paddy produced is roughly 8,65,200 tons, being about an eighth of the entire paddy produced in the State. The usual modes of cultivation adopted in the district are, (1) lease lands by the owners to lessees who arrange for cultivation by tenants, (2) varam sharing and (3) personal cultivation with the aid of agricultural labourers called Pannaiyals. While in other districts, agricultural labourers form a floating population from which the land owners are free to employ whom they choose, in the District of Tanjore the Pannaiyals were as a matter of custom and usage attached from generation to generation to particular holdings so that when heirs succeeded to those holdings or transferees acquired them, they would engage only those Pannaiyals for carrying on the cultivation. Thus, they came to be regarded as in the nature of appurtenances to the land. It further appears that what the tenants in the District of Tanjore were gelling by way of share of produce and the Pannaiyals for wages when thev worked on the fields, were comparatively less than what the cultivating tenants and agricultural labourers were getting for the same work in other districts. There is no need to discuss whether this difference was due to the fact that owing to natural advantages which the delta lands derived from the rich alluvial deposits of the Cauveri the tenants and labourecs of Tanjore had less of work and more of produce than the labourers in other districts. The fact remains that there was disparity in the matter of returns and wages between tenants in Tanjore district and tenants in other districts and it was this disparity that became a fruitful source of discontent and disaffection. The cultivating tenants and Pannaiyals began to smart under the notion that they had not a proper deal and became gradually estranged from the landlord Then came the second World War and the soaring prices that followed in its wake were the last straw that broke the good relationship that existed between landlords and tenants.

(3.) What followed thereon is thus stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State :