KUBERDAS HARGOVINDAS MODI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two of these petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution and two under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner in the first and second petition is the occupant of Survey No. 204 of the village Sahijpurbogh. It is common ground that he sold this field to one Punjiram Prajapati on 1st April 1957 for Rs. 9,176. This sale has been declared invalid by the the Mamlatdar under section 84C (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Pursant to this declaration the land purported to have been sold by the petitioner to Punjiram Prajapati has been declared by the Mamlatdar to have been forfeited to the Govt. and the price received by the petitioner is also declared to have been forfeited to the Governmen. The Mamlatdar's order having been ultimately affirmed by the Prant Officer in appeal and by the Bombay revenue Tribunal in revision, the petitioner seeks to have all those orders quashed under article 227 of the Constitution. By way of precaution the petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 also and that is why he has made two applications. The petitioner in the other petitions is a purchaser of another field of te petitions is a purchase of another field of the same village from the occupant thereof and the sale in his favour has been held by the Tenancy Aval Karkun to be invalid as being in contravention of section 63 of the Act. This order having been affirmed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal the petitioner wants it to be quashed under Article 227. By way of precaution he has also filed and application under Article 226.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 84C of the Act are unconstitutional inasmuch as they contravene Article 31 (2) of the Constitutuion. It is said on behalf of the petitioner that what section 84C purports to do is to acquire property without payment of compensation and, therefore, this section is ultra vires the Consitution. We cannot accept the contention that secftion 84C deals with acquisition of property for a public purpose and, therefore, hold that it is not violative of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution.