1953 (5) TMI 14 - SC - Indian Laws

Inadequacy of compensation in regard to these private lands by reason of article 31(4) of the Constitution, as the provision of that article is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Held that - The expression passed by such Legislature must mean passed with or without amendments in accordance with the normal procedure contemplated by article 107 of the Constitution. There can be no doubt that all the requirements of article 31(4) have been complied with in the present case and consequently there is no room for any objection to the legislation on the ground that the compensation provided by it is inadequate. Section 37 of the Act contains the legislative provision regarding the form and the manner in which the compensation for acquired properties is to be given and as such it comes within the clear language of entry 42 of List III, Schedule VII of the Constitution. It is not a legislation on something which is non-existent or unrelated to facts. It cannot also be seriously contended that what section 37 provides for, is not the giving of compensation but of negativing the right to compensation as the learned counsel seems to suggest. There is no substance in this contention and we have no hesitation in overruling it. The result is that all the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants fail and the appeals are dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952.
2. Validity of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950.
3. Validity of the Madras Estates Land (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1947.
4. Constitutionality of the provisions relating to private lands and buildings.
5. Manner of payment of compensation under the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952:

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, under Article 226. The Act aimed to abolish all zemindary and other proprietary estates and interests in the State of Orissa, bringing the ryots or actual occupants of the lands in direct contact with the State Government. The Act vested all lands, including communal lands, non-ryoti lands, waste lands, trees, orchards, pasture lands, forests, mines, minerals, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks, water channels, fisheries, ferries, hats, and bazars, and buildings or structures in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the estates was calculated based on the net annual income of the estate during the previous agricultural year. The High Court dismissed the petitions challenging the Act, and the appellants did not press the contention attacking the constitutional validity of the Act as a whole before the Supreme Court.

2. Validity of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950:

The appellants argued that the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950, was a colorable piece of legislation, intended to reduce the net income of intermediaries artificially to lower the compensation payable under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of colorable legislation does not involve questions of bona fides or mala fides but revolves around the competency of the legislature to enact a particular law. The Court emphasized that the motives of the legislature are irrelevant if it is competent to pass the law. The Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 46 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The Court concluded that the Act was not a colorable legislation and was valid.

3. Validity of the Madras Estates Land (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1947:

The appellants challenged the provisions of the Madras Estates Land (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1947, which allowed the Provincial Government to settle and reduce rents retrospectively. They argued that the amendments involved improper delegation of legislative powers and violated the equal protection clause under Article 14. The Supreme Court agreed with the Attorney-General that these arguments were not relevant to the validity of the Estates Abolition Act. The Court left the questions open, allowing the appellants to raise objections if the gross assets were computed based on rents settled under the amended Act.

4. Constitutionality of the provisions relating to private lands and buildings:

The appellants objected to the provisions of the Act that vested buildings used for estate or office purposes and private lands in possession of temporary tenants in the State Government. The Supreme Court held that the acquisition of buildings used for estate purposes was ancillary to the abolition scheme and came within Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The compensation provided for these buildings under section 26(2)(iii) of the Act was valid. Regarding private lands, the Court noted that the compensation was based on the net income of the property, and no question of inadequacy of compensation could be raised due to Article 31(4) of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the provisions were constitutional.

5. Manner of payment of compensation under the Act:

The appellants challenged the manner of payment of compensation under section 37 of the Act, which provided for payment in 30 annual equated installments. The Supreme Court held that section 37 came within Entry 42 of List III, Schedule VII of the Constitution, and was not a colorable legislation. The provision was valid, and the contention of the appellants was overruled.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, and the related amendments were constitutional. The Court directed that each party should bear its own costs in the appeals.

← Previous Next →