STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC versus MADHAVRAO DAMODAR PATILCHAND AND ORS. ETC.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

MADHA VRAO DAMODAR PATILCHAND AND ORS. ETC.

April 10, 1968 [M. lln>AYATULLAH, C.J., J, c. SHAH, s. M. R. S. BACHAWAT, G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM . AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]

s. M. SIKRI,

Constitution 'of Jndic, 1950, Art. JIB-Maharashtra Act 13 of 1962 amending the Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Hold-ings) Act (27 of 1961)-1961 Act mentioned In Ninth Schedule, but not amending Act-Amending Act if protected by Art, JIB-Seventeenth Amendment, if valid-Entry 35, of List II of Seventh Schedule-Scope of-Order passed under Defence of India Rules, r. 12SB-lf overrides s. 28 of the Maharashtra Act 27 of 1961.

The Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended by Act 13 of J962, was passed for securing the distri· bution of agricultural land to subserve the common good by imposing ceiling on the holding of agricultural land. Section 28 of the Act is, intt7 alia, concerned with ensuring supply of sugarcane to factories and ensurin~ that the persons to whom surplus land is granted, after it has vested 1n the State Government, also supply it at fair price.

The Godavari Sugar Mills was public limited company owning two factories fOlr the manufacture of ·sugar and allied prequels and held large area• of land for the purpese of cultivation of sugarcane for its factories. Jn proceedings under the Act, large areas of land held by the Mills were declared surplus. The valid'ty of the Act was challenged on the follow-ing grounds: (I) Article 31B does not protect the Amending Act 13 of 1962 from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, because, in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964, only the Maharaahtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, was included and not the Amending Act of 1962, (2) Jn spite of the detjsion of this Court in Go/ak Nath v. State of Puniab, (1967] 2 S.C.R. 762, the Seventeenth Amendment is invalid; (3) The State Legislature was not competent to enact the impugned Act; and ( 4) The order passed by the Sta•e Govern. ment under r. l 25B of the Defence of India Rules.· teserving certain areas for the factories mentioned by the schedule to the order--One of which was Mills-and prohibWng (a) the working of certain power crushers, (b) the export of sugarcane from the reserved areas except in accordance with permit issued by the Collector, and (c) the purch-of sugarcane for crushing or for manufacture of gur, gul or jaggery by khandsari unit or by crusher not belonging to grower or body of growers of sugarcane except in accorda'lce with permit issued by the Collector, rendered ineffective s. 28 of the impugned Act.

HELD: (I) Even on strict interpretation of Art. 31B the only re-quirement laid down by the Article for protecting an enactment from challenge on the ground . of violation of fundamental rights is that the Act should be specified in the Ninth Schedule. Ordinarily, if an Act is referred to by its title, it means the Act with all the amendments made in it up to the date of reference, and there is no reason for not applying this rule of interpretation to the Ninth Schedule. Certain amending Acts are, no doubt, mentioned in the Ninth Schedule, but the only reason for

inserting them expressly was that some States, out of abundant caution, recommended their amending Acts to be specifically inserted in the Ninth Schedule. (719 D-E, F, H; 720 C-D]

Observations in Shri Ram Narain v. Tlw Simla Banking and Indus-trial Co. Ltd., [1956) S.C.R. 603, 614, explained.

(2) The result arrived at in Go/aknath's case was that the Se...,nteenth Amendment was valid and this result is binding on this Bench of this Court. (721 CJ

( 3) The impugned Act, apart from s. 28, is law with respect to Entry 18 of List II which deals with 'Land etc.' and Entry 42 of List ID, which deals with 'Acquisition and Requisition of Property.' Section. 28 itself falls within Entry 35 of List II which deals with 'Works, laru!S and buildill,11> vested in or in the po!ISOSSion of the State,' as that section only deals with lands which have vested in the State. The'refore, the · State Legislature was competent to pass the enactment. [721 F-0; 722 A.CJ

( 4) If an order made under the Defence of India Rules is in conJlict with the provisions of s. 28 of the impugned Act, the order would ovemde the section. But the order passed by the State Government, in the instant case, was not in conllict with the section and the two could stand together. (722 G-Hl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2239 to 2250 of 1966.

Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 25; 1963

of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 970, 884, 692, 963, 959 and 1124 to 1130 of 1963 and Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 9, 10, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1642 of 1963.

C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, M. S. K: Sastri and S. P.

Nayar, for the appellant (in C.A. Nos. 2239 to 2250 of 1966).

F. S. Nariman, D. S. Nargo/kar and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents (in C.A. No. 2239 of 1966).

R. V. S. Mani, for intervener No. 1 (in C.A. No. 2239 of

D. P. Singh, for intervener No. 2 (in C.A. No. 2239 of 1966).

F. S. Nariman, Bhuvanesh Kumari, 0. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain, D. M. Popat, S. I. Thakore and B. Part"4sarathy, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 694 of 1967).

C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General and S. P. Nayar, for res-

pondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.A. No. 694 of 1967). ·

S, K. Mehta, for the intervener (in C.A. No. 694 of 1967).

SUPREME COURT REPOllTS

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Sikri, J.-This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 and Civil Appeals Nos. 2239-2250 of 1966. ·

In September 1963, the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 filed ·petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution (Special Civil Application No. 1642 of 1963) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the validity of the Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961) as amended by Maharashtra Act Xffi of 1962-hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. The first appellant is public limited company and ciwns two factories for the manufacture of sugar and allied products situate at Taluka Kopergaon in Ahmednagar District of the State. of Maharashtra. The first appellant also held large areas of land in several villages in Taluka Kopergaon for the pur-pose of cultivation of sugarcane for its factories. In the proceed-ings under the impugned Act large areas held by the first appellant were declared surplus.Various persons had earlier filed similar petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the impugned ~t. The High Court by Its judgment dated October 25, 1963, disposed of them. The High Court held that "the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings)• Act, 1961, is valid piece of legislaticin and Within the competence of the State Legislature to enaet, except that the provisions of s. 2.8 thereof offend Art. 14 of the Constitu-tion and are void. The effect· of our decision however would not be to entitle the petitioners to get any declaration that their lands which are held by an induStrial undertaking are exempt from the operation of the Act nor that the orders passed by the first respondent on the 28th of February 1963 are null. and vold and have no legal effect. The lands will vest in the State but they will not be entitled to deal With the lands under any of the provi-sions of s. 28." The High Court, subject to the above declara-tion, dismissed the petitions. The State having obtained certifi-cates of fitness under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution filed appeals Nos. CA 2239-2250 of 1966 against the above mentioned judg-ment.

After this judgment, the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964-hereinafter referred to as the Seventeenth Amendment-which came into force on June 20, 1964. This amendment included 44 more Acts, as items 21 to 64, in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitu-tion. Item 34 in the Schedule as amended reads :

"Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961).

MAHAllASHTRA v. PAT!LCHAND (Sikri, J.)

The petition of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 (Special Civil Application No. 1642 of 1963) was dismissed by the High Coun by its judgment dated March 10, 1965. The High Coun held that the Seventeenth Amendmen.t had put s. 28 and other provisions of the impugned Act beyond challenge on the ground that they were inconsistent with or take away or abridge any fundamental rights. The High Court also held that the impugned Act was not rendered inoperative because ot ·the Defence of India Act, 1962, and the Rules made thereunder.

The appellants having obtained certificate of fitness under Art. 133(l)(a) have appealed. ·

Mr. F. S. Nariman, who .appears for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 and for the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 2239-2250 of 1966 submits the following.points before as:

( 1) That Art. 3 lB does not protect from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights the provisions of Acts amending the Maharashtra Agricultu-D ral Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Acts, 1961, as origi-nally enacted :

(2) That the Seventeenth Amendment in spite of the decision of this Court in I. C. Go/ak Nath v. State of P11njab(') is invalid;

(3) That the State Legislature was not competent to enact the impugned Act in so far as it affects sugar-cane farms held by Industrial undertakings and lands on 'vhich sugarcane is grown; and

(4) ·That the Defence of India Act (LI of 1962) and the Rules made thereunder override or render in· effective s. 28 of the impugned Acl

In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is neces-sary to notice the scheme of the impugned Act and set out the ;:elevant provisions.

The preamble of the impugned Act gives broadly the general purpose of the Act. It reads :

"Whereas, for securing the distribution of agricul· tural land as best to subserve the common _good, it is expedient in the public interest to impose maximum limit (or ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra; to provide for the acquisition of land held in excess of the ceiling, and for. the distri-bution thereof to landless and other persons; and for

II) (1967 2S.C.R. 762.

[l 968] 3 s.c.R.

matters connected with the purposes aforesaid; it is hereby enacted •.•• "

The provisions of the impugned Act carry out these objectives by imposing ceiling on holding of land (Chapter II) and determi-nation, declaration and vesting of surplus land (Chapter IV). Chapter V deals with determination and payment of compensa-tion. Chapter VI deals with distribution of surplus land. Chap-B ter VII is concemed with procedure and appeal, and in-Chapter VIII various miscellaneous provisions are made. We may notice s. 21, s. 27 and s. 28 in detail. lfnder s. 21 the Collector makes declaration stating therein his decision, inter alia, on the area, description and full particulars of the land which is delimited as surplus land. Under sub-s. (2) the Collector notifies this area, and under sub-s. ( 4) after lapse of certain time the Collector takes possession of the land which is delimited as surplus. The elfect of thus taking possession, in brief, is that '.'the surplus land shall be deemed to be a<;guired by the State GOvernment for the purposes of the Act and shall accordingly vest fu the State Govem· ment." Section 27 directs distribution of surplus land in the I> ~of priority set out in sub-ss. (2), (3), (4) and (5), For instance, sub-s. (2) gives priority to tenant who was rendered . landless because the person to whom the surplus land belonged had resumed land from his tenant for pel'SQnal cultivation under any tenancy law. Sub-s. (5) provides:

"(5) Thereafter all surplus land (including sur-plus land which has not been gran~ under sub-section (2) or ( 3) . or ( 4) shall be olfered in the following order of priority, that is to say,-

. (i) petson from whom any land has been resum-

ed by his landlord for pel'SQnal cultivation under any tenancy Jaw .and who in consequence thereof has been rendered landless, provided that such persQn is resi-dent of the village in which die surplils land for distri~ blition is si"!ate, or within five miles thereof;

( i-a) serving members of the armed forces, and ex servicemen;

. (i·b) joint fanning society or farming society,

the members of which answer to any of the following descriptions, namely :-

(i) serving members of the aniled forces,

(ii) ex-servicemen,

(iii) agriculfural labourers,

(iv) landless persons, or

( v) small holders;

Provided that the majority of members of such society are serving members of the armed forces or ex-servicemen;

(ii) joint farming society, the members of which answer to the one or more of the following descriptions, namely:-

agricultural labourer or landless person or small holder;

(iii) farming society, the members of which ans-wer to the one or more of the following descriptions, namely:·-

agricultural labourer or landless person or small holder;".

Section 28 which is the subject matter of special attack provides:

"28 (1) Where any land held by an industrial undertaking is acquired by, and vests in, the State Government under section 21, such land being land which wail being used for the purpose of producing or providing raw material for the manufact\lre or produc-1: tion of any goods, articles or commodities by the undertaking, the State Goveniinent shall take particular care to ensure that the 3C'1Uisition of the land does not affect adversely the production and supply of raw mate-rial from the land to the undertaking.(2) Notwithstanding any'lhing contained in section 27, but subject to any rule8 made in this behalf, for the purpose of so ensuring the continuance of the supply of such raw material . to the undertaking, and generally for the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture and its efficient management, the State GoVemment-

( a) may, if it is in the opinion . of that Govern-ment necessary for the purpose aforesaid (such opinion being formed after considering . the representation of persons interested therein) maintain the integrity of the area so acquired, in one or more compact blocks; -and

(b) may, subject to such terms and conditions (including in particular, conditions which are calculated to ensure the full and continuous supply of raw mate-·riai to the Ulldertaking, at fair price), grant the land,

[1968] 3 S.C.ll·

718 SUPl.EMB COUl.T llBPO&TS

or any part thereof, to joint farming· socioty (or member thereof) consisting as far as possib~ of-

( i) persons who had previously leased such land to the undertaking,

(ii) agricultural labour (if any) employed by the undertaking on such !and,

(iii) technical or other stall engaged by the under-taking on such land, or in relation: to the production of any raw ll!aterial,

(iv) adjoining landholders who are small holders,

( v) landless persons :

Provided that, the State Government may-

( a) for such period as is necessary for the setting up of joint farming societies as aforesaid, being not more than three years in the first instance (extensible to further period not exceeding two years} from the date of taking possession of the land, direct that the .land acquired, or any part thereof, shall be cultivated by one or more fanns run or managed by the State, or by one or more corporations (including company) owned or controlled by the State;

(b) grant to the landlord so much of the surplus

land leased by him to the undertaking, which together with any other land held by him does not exceed the ceiling area (but if the landtord be public trust and and major portion of the income from t.he land is being appropriated for purposes of education or ~edical relief, grant the entire land to the public trust} on condition that the landlord, or as the case may be, the public trust lease the land to farm or corporation described in clause (a) aforesaid, and thereafter, in the case of landlord (not being public trust) that he becomes member of the joint farming society, and in the ~ of public trust, that it lease the lafid to joint farming society.

( 3) The State Government may provide that,-

( a) for the breach of any term oi condition referred

to in clause (b) of sub-section (2), or

(b) if the landlord to whom the land is granted fails to lease the land to the farm or corporation or to be-come member of joint farming society; Qr

Qr ( c) if it considers after such inquiry &j it thinks

fit, that the production and supply of raw material to

the undertaking is not maintained at the level or in the manner which, with proper and efficient management it ought to be maintained, or

( d) Jor any other reason it is undesirable in the interest ci~ the full and efficient cultivation of the land, that the joint farming society should continue to culti-vate the land,

the grant shall, after giving three months' notice of termination thereof and after giving the other party reasonable opportunity of showing cause, be terminated, and the land resumed. Thereafter, the State Govern-c ment may make such other arrangements as it thinks fit for the proper cultivation of the land and maintenance of the production and supply of raw material to the undertaking."

Regarding the first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it seems to us that the High Court was right in holding that Art. 3 lB does protect the impugned Act from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. There is no doubt that Art. 3 lB should be interpreted strictly. But even interpret-ing it strictly, the only requirement which is laid down by Art. 31B is that the Act should be specified in the Ninth Schedule. Now the question arises whether the impugned Act has been specified in the Ninth Schedule or not. It is true that what is mentioned in entry 34 of the Ninth Schedule is "The Maharashtra Agricul-tural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961)" which may be referred to as the Principal Act. and no mention is made of the Amending Act, namely, Maha-rashtra Act XIII of 1962. Ordinarily if an Act is referred to by its title, it is intended to refer to that Act with all the amendments made in it upto the date of reference. For instance, the Consti-tution refers to 'the General Clauses Act, 1897, in Art. 367. This Article provides that "unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897. shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Ariicle 372, apply for the interpretation cif this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the· Dominion of India." If the contention of the learned counsel for the appel-lant is accepted it would mean that for the purposes of the inter-pretation of the Constitution the General Clauses Act, as origi-nally enacted in 1897, would alone be taken into consideration. We can hardly imagine that this was the intention of the Constit11-H tion makers. Further, when one refers to the Code of Civil Pro-cedure or the Criminal Procedure Code or the Indian Penal Code one ordinarily ·means to refer to them as amended up to date. There is no reason why this ordinary manner of referring to Act>

should not be borne in mind while interpreting the Ninth Schedule.

It is true that some amending Acts are mentioned in the Nmth Schedule apart from the principal Acts. For example, the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) is mentioned in item 9, while the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1950 (Madras Act I of 1950) is mentioned in item 10. Further item 20 specifically mentions the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1948), as amended by West Bengal Act XXIX of 1951. But then there ate many other Acts which had be•:n amended before they were inserted in the Ninth Schedule, anc; Ne can hard-c ly imagine that Parliament intended only to protect the Acts as original!y passed and not the amendments made up to the date of their incorporation into the Ninth Schedule. The. reason for this express insertion of certain amending Acts seems to be that some States, out of abundant caution, recommended that their amending Acts be specifically inserted in the Ninth Schedule. It is true that for some purposes an amending Act retains its jndividua!ity, as observed by Jagannadhadas, J., in Shri Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd. ([1]) :"In the present case what we are concerned with is not the meaning of any particular phrase or provision of the Act after the amendment but the effect of the amending provisions in their relation to and effect on other statutory provisions outside the Act. For such purpose the amendment cannot obviously be treated as having been part of the original Act itself so as to en-able the doctrine to be called in aid that later Act overrides an earlier Act."

These observations, however, do not lead to the conclusion that when an Act is referred to by its title it is not intended to include the amendments made in it.

Accordingly we must overrule the first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that Art. 3 lB pro-tects the impugned Act including the amendments made in it upto the date of its incorporation into the Ninth Schedule. The im-pugned Act cannot, therefore, be challenged on the ground that it violates Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. We, accord-. ingly, agree with the High Court that s. 28 which was originally held by the High Court to violate Art. 14 of the Constitution is now protected under Art. 31B from attack on the ground that it infringes Art. 14.

(I) (19S6] S. C.R. 603, 614.

Coming to the second point, the learned counsel merely men-tions the point. He says that there was no majority for any parti-cular ratio as five Judges held the Seventeenth Amendment to be void because it contravened Art. 13(2), but by applying the doc-trine of "prospective overruling" they declared that their decision would not affect the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment. Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, on the other hand did not apply the doctrine of "prospective overruling", but held s. 3 ( 2) of the Seventeenth Amendment to be bad. The other five Judges held that the Seventeenth Amendment was valid amendment of the Constitution. We are, however, bound by the result arrived at by this Court in that decision and the result that the Seventeenth Amendment is valid is binding on us. We may mention that Mr. Mani, appearing for one of the interveners, also raised this point but ultimately asked for permission to be allowed to with-draw 'the point.

Coming to the third point, the learned counsel for the appel-lant contends that s. 28 is law with respect to entry 52 of List I,

and therefore beyond the competence of the State Legislature. The entry reads thus :

"52. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest."

He points out that one of the industries specified in the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (LXV of 1951) is "sugar''. He says that the whole object of s. 28 of the impugned Act with regard to lands held by industrial under-takings who were producing sugarcane was to ensure the produc-tion of sugarcane and its supply to the sugar factories and this object falls squarely within entry 52, List I. In the alternative he urges that the State Legislature had no authority to legislate adversely on matters falling within item 52. There is no doubt that the impugned Act, apart from s. 28, is law with respect to entry 18 of List II and entry 42 of List III. These entries read as follows:

"Entry 18, List II : Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents, transfer and alienation of agricul-tural land, land improvement and agricultural Joans; colonization.

Entry 42, List III : R Acquisition and Requisition of property." It is' no tseriously disputed that apan from s_. 28 the rest of the impugned Act is law with respect to entry 18, List II and entry 42 List III. .

It is not necessary to consider whether s. 28 can be sustaini:d -0n the ground that it is an ancillary or subsidiary matter to the Jaw made under entry 18 List II and entry 42, List III, for, in our .opinion, s. 28 falls within entry 35 list II, which reads :

"Works, lands and buildings vested in or in the possession of the State."

It will be noticed that s. 28 only deals with lands which have vested ip the State. There cannot be any doubt that the Stat" Legislature is competent to enact provisions regarding the produc-tion and supply of raw materials from land which bas vested in the Stale and for the full and efficient use of such 'land and ic; efficient management.

Coming now to the last point, the learned counsel for the appellants urges that by virtue of Art. 251 of the Constitution s. 28 can no longer be effective as it is repugnant to the Defence of India •Act and the Rules made thereunder. He says that under s. 3(2) (26) of the Defence of India Act, 1962, the Central Gov-ernment is enabled to make orders providing for "the control of agriculture (including the cultivation of agricultural land and crops to be raised therein) for the purpose of increasing the pro· duction and supply of foodgrains and other essential agricultural products." By notificalion dated October 30, 1963, the Govern·· ment of Maharashtra made an order whereby it "reserved each of the areas specified in coJumn ( 3) of the Schedule hereto annexed for the factory respectively specified against it in column (2) thereof'', and made other provisions regarding the purchase and export of sugarcane. In the Schedule the following areas w~r~ made reserved areas for the appellant, the Godavari Sugar Mills Limited:

;'Areas comprised within the limits of the following talukas. ·

(i) Kopergaon of Ahmednagar District.

(ii) Shrirampur of Ahmedabad District."

This order was made by the Government of Maharashtra in the exercise of its powers under r. 125-B of the Defence of India Rules.

The learned counsel is right that to the extent valid orders made under the Defence of India Rules conflict with the provisions in s. 28, the orders would override s. 28 of the impugned Act. But it has not been shown to us on the material available here how the order dated October 30, 1963, is in conflict withs. 28. The order first reserves certain areas for the factories mentioned in the Sche· dule, and then prohibits the working of certain power crushers and ·also prohibits the export of sugarcane from the reserved area;

MAHARASHTRA V. PAT!LCHAND (Sikri, J.) 723 except in accordance with pennit issued by the Collector of the District. It furtjler prohibits the purchase of sugarc1111e for crush-ing or for manufacture of gur, gul or jaggery by khandsari unit or by crusher not belonging to grower or body of growers of sugarcane except under and in accordance with permit issued by the CoJ!ector. Section 28, inter alia, is concerned with ensuring the supply of sugarcane to the factories and ensuring that the per-sons to whom -the land is granted also supply it at fair price. It seems to us that the provisions of s. 28 can stand together with the order dated October 30, 1963. In our opinion there .is no force in the point raised by the learned counsel.

In the result Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 is dismissed. The other appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 2239-2250 of 1966) are allowed, judgment of the High Court, insofar as it declared s. 28 void, set aside and the petitions out of which these appeals arose dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in all the appeals.

V.P.S. C.A. No. 694 of 1967 dismissed, other appeals allowed.