STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MURARAO MALOJIRAO GHORPADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), primarily with an object to give effect to the State policy so that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment as well as to ensure the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. The Directive Principles of State policy contained under Part IV of the Constitution of India had attained a different significance and legal stature of the Directive Principles was uplifted by the 25th Amendment Act, 1971 of the Constitution. Article 31-C of the Constitution states that, notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 of the Constitution, and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. Article 39 of the Constitution places an obligation upon the State under Clauses (b) and (c) to ensure and appropriately control the distribution and ownership of material resources available to the community. The Act, therefore, was intended to unequivocally declare the State policy towards securing principles specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. The implementation of the provisions of the Act faced number of practical and legal impediments and the Act, within the span of 1962 to 2006, was subjected to State Amendment Bills by amending different provisions of the said Act 23 times, including latest amendment by Maharashtra Act 8 of 2006. The Amendment of 2006 was introduced by the Legislature to impose a maximum limit or ceiling on holdings of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for acquisition and distribution of land held in excess of such ceiling.

(2.) Ours is an agricultural country with large population living in the rural areas and depending upon agriculture for their livelihood. It was felt necessary by the framers of the Act to provide that the lands taken over from undertakings and the integrity of which is maintained in compact blocks, for ensuring the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture and its efficient management through a Corporation or Company, the aim was made clear to secure and distribute the agricultural land as best to subserve the common good and thus it was felt expedient in the public interest to impose a maximum limit or ceiling on acquisition of land. Section 3 of the Act incorporated the prohibition on holding land in excess of ceiling area declaring the area in excess of ceiling to be surplus lands. Constitutional validity of section 3 of the Act was challenged before a Bench of this Court.

(3.) The Amending Act 21 of 1975 had introduced two important changes viz. definition of 'family unit' and requiring a landholder in the State to declare the agricultural land holding in any other part of the State and States in India for the purposes of clubbing together, in order to determine the ceiling on holdings. By these amendments, the landholders also had a grievance, as under the earlier Act the land possessed by them was lower than the ceiling limit but by amendment, even that land was partially adversely affected. The land owners were required to file fresh returns within the specified time under the amended Act, even declaring the lands held by them situated in other States of India. Various Writ Petitions were filed from time to time which came to be clubbed together before different Benches of this Court. The Division Bench which was hearing the bunch of cases was inter alia concerned with the challenge to the definition of the 'family unit' and lowering of the limit. They came to be disposed of by a judgment of this Court in the case of Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1977 AIR(Bom) 99. However, as a result of oversight, some matters were not listed before the Court and they came up for hearing before another Division Bench. The Division Bench hearing other group of the matters at Nagpur found that they were unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the Division Bench at Bombay. In fact, the Judges presiding over the Division Bench differed with each other on the question of extra-territorial jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court in Vithalrao's case (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court but in that Petition, the question of extra-territoriality of the ceiling provision had not been raised. In these circumstances, the matter was placed before the Full Bench on the issue whether the question should be determined by the Full Bench itself or the matter needs to be referred to a 3rd Judge as a member of the Division Bench at Nagpur had differed on certain basic issues, therefore, the Full Bench while dealing with the case of Shankarrao and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra,1980 MhLJ 888 decided to deal and decide the questions of law by itself (Full Bench). At this stage itself, it will be relevant to refer to the questions framed by the Full Bench. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as under :