UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU SMT LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL Vs. LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL:UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on July 23,1990

UNION TERRITORY OF GOA,DAMAN AND DIU,LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA,LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RIJU PRASAD SARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIMBANGA BHUMIJIBI KRISHAK SAMITI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1996-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
JUDITH FERNANDES VS. CONCEICAO ANTONIO FERNANDES [LAWS(SC)-1996-8-90] [REFERRED TO]
SUKDO LADKO NAIK VS. NAVSO BOMBDO GAWDE [LAWS(BOM)-1999-3-120] [REFERRED TO]
HERIBERTO FRANCISCO MARIA D'CUNHA ALIAS HARIBERTO D'CUNHA VS. VICTOR LUIS [LAWS(BOM)-2012-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
MONICA XAVERINHA FERNANDES VS. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-1991-7-98] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sharma, J. - (1.)The civil appeals Nos. 1314-1318 of 1979 by certificate are directed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu, declaring the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (5th Amendment) Act, 1976, as unconstitutional. The respondents are landlords in Goa. The lands were in possession of the tenants who were cultivating the same and paying rent to the respondents. The respondents were divested of their title in the lands by the provisions of the impugned Act which came in force in 1976 vesting the same in the tenants. The respondents filed five writ applications in the court of the Judicial Commissioner challenging the validity of the Amendment Act. The writ petitions were allowed by the impugned judgment. It has been held that the Act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and the protection of Article 31 A is not available as the scheme of the Act does not constitute agrarian reform:
(2.)It has been contended on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners that the landlords in Goa are generally small land-holders and their condition is not better than that of the tenants and in that view the Act divesting the landlords of their title in the land and vesting the same in the tenants suffers from the vice of illegal discrimination. A similar Act was earlier passed by the Maharashtra Legislature also which has been found to be constitutionally valid. The writ petitioners have, before the court below, successfully argued that the decision in that case is not applicable inasmuch as the Maharashtra Act contains provisions fixing ceiling to which the other provisions are subject to, while there is no such restriction in the present Act. The result is that although the Maharashtra Act had to be upheld as a measure of agrarian reform and thus protected by Article 31A of the Constitution, the present Act cannot be so interpreted.
(3.)During the pendency of these appeals the impugned Amendment Act along with the main Act were included in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution and the assent of the President was received on the 26th of August, 1984. Smt. Lakshmibai Narayan Patil, the writ petitioner in the three of the cases in the court of Judicial Commissioner (respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 1314, 1315 and 1316 of 1979) has challenged the constitutional amendment as illegal and ultra vires by filing an application under Article 32 of the Constitution which has been numbered as Writ Petition No. 864 of 1988.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.