1966 (6) TMI 13 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amendment of the definition of the word "estate" in clause (8) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, made by Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963, is within the definition of the word "estate" in Article 31A(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether Pargana Agori is an "estate" within the Reforms Act.
3. Whether the High Court erred in holding that on account of the mention of a wrong area in the khewat, the entry cannot be said to be in respect of the entire area.
4. Whether Naksha Pattidaris prepared by Rai Manak Chand in 1843 constituted a record of rights.
5. Whether the impugned Act can be saved under Article 31A.
6. Whether the acquisition of the estate was for the purposes of agrarian reforms.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the Definition of "Estate":
The primary question raised was whether the amendment of the definition of "estate" in clause (8) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, by Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963, falls within the definition of "estate" in Article 31A(2) of the Constitution. The court examined the retrospective amendment and its alignment with the constitutional provision.

2. Definition of Pargana Agori as an "Estate":
The court evaluated whether Pargana Agori qualifies as an "estate" within the meaning of the Reforms Act. The Single Judge initially held that Pargana Agori was not an estate as per Section 3(8) of the Reforms Act because no records were prepared and maintained under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, in respect of Pargana Agori. However, the Division Bench, considering the new definition introduced by the 1958 amendment, concluded that only areas expressly mentioned in the khewats vested in the State.

3. High Court's Error on Khewat Entries:
The State argued that the High Court erred in holding that the mention of a wrong area in the khewat invalidated the entry for the entire area. The court examined the entries in the khewats and the implications of incorrect area mentions.

4. Naksha Pattidaris as Record of Rights:
The State contended that Naksha Pattidaris prepared by Rai Manak Chand in 1843 constituted a record of rights. The court assessed the historical context and legal standing of these records.

5. Impugned Act under Article 31A:
The court addressed whether the impugned Act could be saved under Article 31A. The argument was that the Act was not passed for agrarian reforms and included areas not considered "estate" under Article 31A(2). The court referred to the definition in Article 31A(2) and existing laws relating to land tenures to determine the validity of the acquisition.

6. Acquisition for Agrarian Reforms:
The court evaluated whether the acquisition of the estate was for the purposes of agrarian reforms. The argument was that the acquisition of vast forest areas did not align with agrarian reforms. The court held that the acquisition of Jagirs, Inams, or similar grants was necessary for implementing agrarian reforms and was contemplated in Article 31A.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the State were accepted, and the appeal filed by the petitioner Raja was dismissed. The petition under Article 226 filed by the Raja was also dismissed. The court upheld the notifications dated June 30, 1953, and July 1953, and concluded that the impugned Act could claim the protection of Article 31A. There was no order as to costs.