A. VEERIYA VANDIYAR MEMORIAL, SRI PUSHPAM COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No. 3624 of 1973 the Petitioner is A. Veerayya Vandiyar Memorial Sri Pushpam College, Poondi. On 19th January, 1966, a deed of declaration was executed by the founders of this College presided over by Sri Veerayya Vandiayar. In and by that document, a permanent endowment for the establishment and maintenance of the college, for the construction of buildings and for equipments and furniture, was created. The deed of trust contains three schedules. The A schedule relates to an extent of 46 acres 32 cents of buildings sites in which the college is located. The B schedule consists of an extent of 399.95 acres of land, dry, wet, house sites, topes, etc., in various villages in the district of West Thanjavur. The B schedule properties were intended to provide funds for the establishment and maintenance of the college. Even the C Schedule properties of an extent of 168.80 acres were set apart by the fore fathers of the donors under the declaration of trust for various charities referred to in an agreement, dated 9th September, 1964 and for the setting up of an institution for the advancement of education. With the help of such munificent donations made by the donors under the agreement, dated 9th September, 1964 and under the deed of trust, dated 19th January, 1956 the Petitioner college was started which was later on affiliated to the University of Madras. Due to the untiring and self -less devotion and service of Sri Veerayya Vandiyar, the Petitioner has grown into a First Grade Post Graduate affiliated college of the University of Madras. The Petitioner refers to the strength of the college, the various humanities and sciences taught in the college and in the main refers to the substantial agricultural lands endowed for the benefit and maintenance of the college. The lands consisted of certain inam lands which were taken over by the Government under the Inams Abolition Act. The other lands, which were ryotwari, came within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961) (hereinafter called the Land Reforms Act), which came into force on 6th April, 1960. Inter alia the Land Reforms Act provided that on and from the date of commencement of the Act, no person shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area as prescribed therein. The surplus lands have to be determined under Sec. 18 of the Act and a notification has to be made to the effect that the surplus lands are required for public purpose and as soon as such surplus lands are taken over, compensation, according to the graded slab, has to be paid to the owner from whom such lands are taken over. Until 1970, the lands belonging to the Petitioner being, held by a charitable or educational institution, were not affected. Under the Tamil Nadu Act XXXVII of 1972, Sec. 73 of the Parent Act was amended which said that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any land held by any University constituted by any law. The result was that the Act was made applicable to educational institutions of a public nature including the Petitioner college and the trust, Under the Tamil Nadu Act XXXVII of 1972, lands belonging to religious institutions or any religious trust of a public nature, which were in existence at the commencement of that Act was also excluded. The only salient feature was that as far as educational institutions were concerned, the ceiling area was fixed under the table prescribed under the Act. According to the said table the ceiling area for any college affiliated to or recognised by any University was fixed at 40 standard acres and for any hostel attached thereto 25 standard acres. This amending Act was assented to by the President on 8th December, 1972. But a retrospective effect was given to it so as to make it effective from 1st March, 1972. This was again followed by another Act called the Fourth Amendment Act of 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXIX of 1972), in and by which the compensation payable to such public institution was also reduced. The Petitioner was called upon to submit a return as to its holdings consequent upon the passing of the amending Acts in 1972. The Petitioner objected and stated that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the Petitioner institution. Finding, however, that the State of Tamil Nadu were taking steps to enforce the provisions of the Act, the Petitioner has come up to this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction restraining the second and the third Respondents from applying the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acts XXXVII and XXXIX of 1972. The grounds on which the petition has been laid are in the main that as certain fundamental rights of the Petitioner arc involved and as the State laws in question have been reserved for the assent of the President, it is said that the President would not have given his assent, if he had applied his mind over all the implications thereto and as President ordinarily acts on the advice of the Union Cabinet it is said that such assent is as such an act of the Union Government and, therefore, cannot be deemed to be an act of the President which is beyond judicial review. In any case, if the assent is deemed to have been given by the President, it is said that Courts have the power to satisfy themselves that such assent was given properly by the President, even though under the advice of the Union Cabinet. As such assents are equivalent to executive orders made by the Union Government, which is also made as the first Respondent to the writ petition, the bone of contention is that certain irrelevant materials were taken into consideration by the President under the advice of the first Respondent when he give the assent. Incidentally it is said that as in the text of Article 31(3) of the Constitution of India the main question which arise for consideration are whether the State Government should be authorised to acquire properties at all and whether the compensation is adequate, and such matters have not been fully gone into and in this respect, therefore, the assent of the President is challenged. Incidentally, one question was raised whether the Petitioner's objections were taken into consideration at all before the State passed the law and sought for the assent of the President. When the State fixed the ceiling originally at 60 standard acres, though later it only fixed 40 standard acres, it did not correctly apply its mind. Therefore, factually it is said that the materials which are required for the President to be considered were not placed before him and as a valid assent by the President can only take away the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 31. Article 31 -A cannot be applied. In any event, it is said that it is open to the Court to consider the reasonableness of the assent made by the President. On the merits it is said that as, to a great extent, the burden of the citizens of the State, namely, the parents, is taken over by the institution by donating large extent of properties, there was no occasion or necessity for the State of Tamil Nadu to apply the Act to the Petitioner institution in those circumstances, it is stated that the impugned enactments, namely, Tamil Nadu Acts, XXXVII and XXXIX of 1972 are ultra vires and have to be struck down. The above contentions were raised in Writ Petition Nos. 3624, 4815 and 4816 of 1973.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Government of India, it is said that the President gave the assent to the Bill after due examination and consideration of all relevant materials in accordance with the relevant rules of business and such an assent is beyond judicial review. It is asserted that the assent given by the President is not one akin to any Government order of the Union Cabinet and it is not open to scrutiny in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the Bill had been validly assented to by the President.

(3.) The State of Tamil Nadu, in its counter-affidavit, while sustaining the ceiling limits fixed for educational institutions, such as the Petitioner institution, states that the Petitioner was asked to submit its returns in accordance with Tamil Nadu Act XXXVII of 1972 and that as no such return was filed, the ceiling was fixed on the basis of the report of the field staff attached to the third Respondent and a notice was issued to the Petitioner declaring the surplus and fixing the ceiling. It is, therefore, expressly denied that the Petitioner or its co -respondent was not aware of the provisions of law and that they were not given notice of the manner and method under which the ceiling was to be fixed in accordance with Tamil Nadu Act XXXVII of 1972. Originally, a surplus after allowing 40 standard acres, was fixed and after notice to the Petitioner's co -respondent and those in charge of the institution, the ceiling: had to be fixed in accordance with law. The Respondents denied that the President did not give his proper assent to the Acts in question. They would state that the writ petitions are not maintainable, as the President has taken into consideration, the relevant matters and given his assent after observing the necessary formalities. They denied that any rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution are affected. In fact, the representations of the Petitioner were taken into consideration and ultimately the ceiling area has been fixed at 40 standard acres and the Petitioner cannot have any grievance at all. As the impugned Acts XXXVII of 1972 and XXXIX of 1972 are only amendments to the principal Act LVIII of 1961, they are not independent enactments transgressing the limitations imposed by the Constitution upon the legislative powers of the State. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is fair and in accordance with the provisions of law. In those circumstances the writ petitions are resisted.