1971 (11) TMI 167 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Chapter III of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1965.
2. Validity of Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1965.
3. Application of the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution regarding personal cultivation and compensation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Chapter III of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1965:

The appellant contended that the High Court erred in holding Chapter III as intra vires. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of Chapter III, which deals with the "Resumption of Land for Personal Cultivation." Section 24(1) gives the right to landlords and tenants to determine resumable and non-resumable lands. Section 25 limits the resumable land to not more than one-half of the lands in respect of each tenant, measured in standard acres. Sections 26 to 36 detail the process of selection, application, determination, compensation, and issuance of certificates regarding resumable and non-resumable lands.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the provisions of Chapter III are not protected by Article 31A(1) because they do not provide for the acquisition by the State or extinguishment of rights. The Court cited the precedent in Atma Ram v. State of Punjab, which held that modification of a landowner's rights through legislation falls within the protection of Article 31A(1). The Court concluded that Chapter III modifies the landlord's substantive rights and is thus protected by Article 31A(1).

2. Validity of Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1965:

The High Court had declared Chapter IV unconstitutional and invalid. However, the Supreme Court noted that no notification under Section 1(3) of the Principal Act had been issued to bring Chapter IV into force. The Court emphasized that courts should not address the validity of a provision that has not been enforced, as it would be an academic question. The Court referenced the Constitution's provision for advisory opinions and concluded that the High Court should not have examined the validity of Chapter IV. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment regarding Chapter IV.

3. Application of the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution regarding personal cultivation and compensation:

The appellant argued that Chapter III's provisions amount to acquisition and thus require compensation at market value under the second proviso to Article 31A(1). The appellant claimed that five acres of Bhagchar land were under his personal cultivation, which should be protected by the proviso. The Court examined the definition of "personal cultivation" and similar terms in other Acts, concluding that personal cultivation implies cultivation by or on behalf of the landowner. The Court determined that Bhagchar cultivation, where the cultivator shares the crop with the owner, does not qualify as personal cultivation under the proviso. Additionally, the Court noted that no ceiling limit was applicable to the appellant under any law for the time being in force, as no notification had been issued under Section 1(3) of the Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that Chapter III of the Act is valid and set aside the High Court's judgment on Chapter IV. Civil Appeal No. 854 of 1968 was dismissed without costs, while the State's appeals were allowed, and the writ petitions filed by the respondents in the State appeals were dismissed, also without costs.