1942 (1) TMI 9 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 178B, Bihar Tenancy Act under the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. Whether the new legislation contravenes the Permanent Settlement Regulation of 1793.
3. Whether the new legislation affects contracts regarding rent and falls under the Concurrent List.
4. Classification of land as agricultural land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 178B, Bihar Tenancy Act under the Government of India Act, 1935:
The primary issue was whether Section 178B of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which limited the landlord's share of the produce to nine-twentieths, was ultra vires of the Bihar Legislature. The judgment concluded that the Bihar Act 8 of 1937 was valid as it had received the Governor's assent, thereby curing any defect related to the lack of previous sanction under Section 299(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. This section allows the Legislature to modify rights in land, including those related to land revenue, provided the Governor's assent is obtained.

2. Whether the new legislation contravenes the Permanent Settlement Regulation of 1793:
The argument was that the new legislation diminished the zamindar's rights conferred by the Permanent Settlement Regulation of 1793, which fixed the revenue for ever. However, the court found no provision in the Permanent Settlement Regulation that prevented the Legislature from passing laws affecting the contractual relationships between zamindars and raiyats. The court emphasized that the Permanent Settlement only fixed the revenue and did not guarantee any specific proportion of produce to the zamindar. Additionally, Article 7 of the Regulation allowed the Governor-General in Council to enact necessary regulations for the protection of raiyats and other cultivators.

3. Whether the new legislation affects contracts regarding rent and falls under the Concurrent List:
The court examined whether Section 178B fell under the Concurrent List (List 3) or the Provincial List (List 2) in Schedule 7 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Item 10 of the Concurrent List includes contracts but excludes those relating to agricultural land. Item 21 of the Provincial List covers land tenures, the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents. The court concluded that contracts relating to agricultural land fall under the Provincial List, making the Bihar Legislature competent to enact Section 178B. This interpretation was supported by the Federal Court's decision in United Provinces V/s. Atiqa Begum, which held that remission of rents fell within the Provincial List.

4. Classification of land as agricultural land:
In the second appeal, the issue was whether a mango orchard constituted agricultural land. The court held that the land in question was agricultural land, as it involved the cultivation of trees, which required seasonal attention and preparation of the soil. The court distinguished between natural growth (jungles) and cultivated growth (orchards), concluding that the latter fell within the definition of agricultural land. This classification was crucial for applying Section 23-A(b) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which deals with the division of produce from agricultural land.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of Section 178B and Section 23-A(b) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, confirming that these provisions were within the competence of the Bihar Legislature. The new legislation did not contravene the Permanent Settlement Regulation of 1793 and appropriately fell under the Provincial List, not the Concurrent List. The classification of the land as agricultural land was affirmed, allowing the application of the contested sections. Consequently, the appeal by the tenant was allowed, and the appeal by the landlord was dismissed.