- (1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 1132-1164 of 1976. This is a group of appeals preferred by certain landholders in the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975), the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act 47 of 1957) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976). The Principal Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature in implementation of the Directive Principles of State Police contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution. It imposed a maximum ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and provided for the acquisition of land held in excess of the ceiling and for the distribution of such excess land to landless and other persons. During the subsequent years, various amendments were made in the Principal Act from time to time and the Principal Act, as amended upto that date, was included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. Thereafter certain further amendments were made in the Principal Act and the amending Acts were also included in the Ninth Schedule as a result of the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975. Then came three major amending Acts which, according to the appellants, introduced the vice of unconstitutionality in the Principal Act. Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975 effected radical amendments in the Principal Act by lowering ceiling on agricultural holding and creating an artificial family unit for fixing ceiling on holding of agricultural land. This amending Act was followed by Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 which effected certain further changes in the Principal Act but these are not very material for the purpose of the present appeals. Since these three amending Acts were enacted after the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975, they were included in the Ninth Schedule along with certain other enactments by the Constitution (fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976. The result was that the Principal Act, as amended by all the subsequent amending Acts including Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 was protected against invalidation under Article 31-B.
(2.) The appellants are landholders in the State of Maharashtra and since and effect of the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Mah. Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 was to expropriate a part of the lands belonging to them, they preferred writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of the Principal Act as amended by these amending Acts on various grounds. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeals to set out the different grounds on which the constitutional challenge was based, since none of these grounds has been pressed before us save one based on contravention of the second proviso to cl. (1) of Article 31A. The only contention that has been urged before us on behalf of the appellants is that the Principal Act, as it stands after its amendment by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976 is void, is so far as it creates an artificial family unit and fixes a ceiling on holding of land by such family unit, since it is violative of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A and is not saved by the immunising provision enacted in Art. 31-B. This contention was also urged before the High Court but it was negatived on the grounds that Art. 31B afforded complete immunity to the provisions of the Principal Act. We may make it clear at this stage that for the sake of convenience, when we hereafter refer to the Act, we mean the Principal Act as amended by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975, Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975 and Maharashtra Act 2 of 1976. The appellants in the present appeals assail this view taken by the High Court and the only question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned Act, in so far as it creates an artificial concept of family unit for fixing ceiling on holding of land bysuch family unit, is in conflict with the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A and if it is, whether it is protected under Article 31-B Though logically the first part of the question as to infraction of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A should receive our consideration earlier in point of time, it would be convenient first to examine the second part of the question, for, if we are of the view that Article 31-B immunises the Principal Act against attack on the ground of violation of the second proviso to Article 31A, it would become unnecessary to consider whether in fact there is any infraction of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31A. But before we examine the scope and applicability of Article 31B in the present case, it would be desirable to refer to a few relevant provisions of the Principal Act.
(3.) The Preamble and the long title of the Principal Act show that it was enacted to impose a maximum ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for the acquisition of land held in excess of ceiling and for the distribution of such land to landless and other persons with a view to securing the distribution of agricultural land in a manner which would best subserve the common good of the people. Section 2 contains various definitions of which only one is material, namely that contained in sub-section (11A). That sub-section defines 'family unit' to mean a family unit as explained in Section 4. Section 3 imposes a prohibition on holding of land in excess of ceiling area and so far as material, it reads as follows : "3 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter III, no person or family unit shall, after the commencement date, hold land in excess of the ceiling area, as determined in the manner hereinafter provided. x x x (2) All land held by a person, or as the case may be, a family unit whether in this State or any other part of India in excess of the ceiling area, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or usage, be deemed to be surplus land, and shall be dealt with in the manner hereinafter provided for surplus land. In determining surplus land from the holding of a person, or as the case may be, of a family unit, the fact that the person or any member of the family unit has died (on or after the commencement date or any date subsequent to the date on which the holding exceeds the ceiling area, but before the declaration of surplus land is made in respect of that holding) shall be ignored; and accordingly, the surplus land shall be determined as if that person, or as the case may be, the member of a family unit had not died." What shall be regarded as land held by a family unit is laid down in Section 4. sub-section (1) which provides : "4 (1) All land held by each member of a family unit, whether jointly or separately, shall for the purposes of determining the ceiling area of the family unit, be deemed to be held by the family unit. Then there is an explanation to this sub-section which explains a 'family unit' to mean : "(a) a person and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters; if any; or (b) where any spouse is dead, the surviving spouse or spouses, and the minor sons and minor unmarried daughters; or (c) where the spouses are dead, the minor sons and minor unmarried daughters of such deceased spouses." Section 5, sub-section (1) read with the First Schedule provides for different ceiling for different classes of lands in the various districts and talukas of the State and sub-sections (2) and (3) lay down the method of computation of the ceiling area where different classes of lands are held by a person or a family unit. Them follows Section 6 which is in the following terms : "Where a family unit consists of members which exceed five in number, the family unit shall be entitled to hold land exceedings the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling are for each member in excess of five, so however that the total holding shall not exceed twice the ceiling area, and in such case, in relation to holding of such family unit, such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area." This is followed by Sections 8 of 11A which deal with restrictions on transfers and acquisitions and consequences of contravention and Sections 12 to 21A which provide inter alia for holding an enquiry for determination of land held in excess of the ceiling area and making of a declaration by the Collector stating his decision on the total area of land which is in excess of the ceiling area and the area, description and full particulars of the land which is delimited as surplus land. Sub-section (4) Section 21 provides that as soon as may be after the announcement of the declaration, the Collector shall take in the prescribed manner possession of the land which is delimited as surplus and the surplus land shall, with effect from the date on which possession is taken, be deemed to be acquired by the State Government for the purposes of the Act and shall accordingly vest, without further assurance and free from all encumbrances, in the State Government. Sections 21 to 26 provide for determination and payment of compensation for the surplus land acquired by the State Government. Them follow provisions in Sections 27 to 29 in regard to distribution of surplus land. These provisions require the State Government to distribute the surplus land in certain order of priority with a view to carrying out the purposes of the legislation. Section 30 to 36 lay down, the procedure for holding inquires under the Act and also provide for appeal mechanism. These are followed by certain miscellaneous provisions in Section 37 to 49 which are not material for the purpose of the present appeals.;