N. H. BHAGWATI J.: - (1.) THE following judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THESE six petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenge the vires of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bom. XIII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the ` impugned Act `). It was an Act further to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter called the 1948 Act `). The petitioners are citizens of India and landholders within the meaning of the 1948 Act holding several acres of land within the State of Bombay out of which a few acres are under their own cultivation, the bulk of the lands being under the cultivation of tenantsexcept in the case of -the petitioners in Petition No. 58 of 1958 where the whole of the lands are under the cultivation of tenants. The 1948 Act had been passed by the State Legislature as a measure of agrarian reform on 28/12/1948, with a view to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands and the objectives sought to be achieved were thus set out in the second paragraph of the preamble:` AND WHEREAS on account of the neglect of a landholder or disputes between a landholder and his tenants, the cultivation of his estate has seriously suffered, or for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purposes, it is expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provisions for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing................ Section 2(8) of the said Act defined ` Land ` to mean: `(a) land which is used for agricultural purposes, and includes(a) the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to such land; and used for agricultural purposes, and (b)......................................................... (i) the sites of dwelling houses occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers or artisans and land appurtenant to such dwelling houses. (ii)........................................................` `Landholder ` was defined in s. 2(9) of the said Act to mean:`a zamindar, jagirdar, saranjandar, inamdar, talukdar, malik or a khot or any person not hereinbefore specified who is a holder of land or who is interested in land, and whom the State government has declared on account of the extent and the value of the land or his interests therein to be a land bolder for the purposes of this Act.`
(3.) UNDER s. 2(21) of the said Act the words and expressions used in the Act but not defined were to have the meaning assigned to them in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the case may be. With a view to achieve the objective of establishing a socialistic pattern of society in the State within the meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, a further measure of agrarian reform was enacted by the State Legislature, being the impugned Act, hereinbefore referred to, which was designed to bring about such distribution of the ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to subserve the common good thus eliminating concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. The said Act received the assent of the President on 16/03/1956, was published in the Bombay government Gazette on 29/03/1956, and came into force throughout the State on Au 1/08/1956. In about November, 1956, certain landholders fr Kolhapur and Sholapur districts in the State of Bombay filed petitions in the Bombay High court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the impugned Act on various grounds.' A division bench of the Bombay High court pronounced its judgment on 21/02/1957, dismissing those petitions with costs except in regard to a declaration as regards the invalidity of section 88D of the Act. The petitioners herein thereupon filed these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the impugned Act and praying for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay ordering them to forbear from enforcing or taking any steps in enforcement of the act, costs and further reliefs. ;