KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. v.

THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

April 27, 1972 [S. M. SrKRr, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]

Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (Kera/a Act 5 of 1971)-Comvetency of State legislature to enact-Sections 4 & 5 of Act do not fa// under entry 52 List I but under entries 18 of List II and .i2 of List III In Seventh Schedule of Constitution-Act whether has pro-tection of Act 31A of Constitution-Land in question whether °'estate',

The petitioner was in possession of an area of approximately 1,27,904 acres, commonly known as the 'Concession Area' lying contiguously in the Kannan Devan Hills village. The concession was firs.t given to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant company in 1877 by the poonjar Chief for consideration of Rs. 5,0001-. After some years yearly sum of Rs. 3,000 was to be paid to the rent collector of the Chief. In 1878 the Maharaja of Travancoro ratified the Concession on c~rtain conditions. In 1886 the agreement called the Second P.ooniat Ccincession was entered into modifying. the previous deed of ratification. Royal Proclamation was made on September 24, 1899 whereby the Poonjar Chief surrendered the propriety rights which he had exercised over the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills. According to the petitioner it had all times been holding, cultivating, enjoying and dealing with the Conca-sion land as the absolute owner thereof. The petitioner further alleged that it had established 23 tea estates, with factories in each estate for the manufacture of tea, hospitals,. quarters, township and shopping centres. The Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption cJf Lands) Act 1971 (Kerala Act 5 of 1971) the lands agricultural & n&n-agricultural situated in the Kannan Devan Hills Vilj.<lge vested in the Government Qf Kerala. The petitioner company filed :ovrit petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging certain provisions of die Act. The questions that fell for consideration were : (i) whether the impugned Act was within the legislative com-petence of the State of Kerala; (ii) whether the impugned Act was pro-tected from challenge under Art 3 lA of the Constitution.

HELD : (i) The State has legislative competence to legislate on entry 18 List II and entry 42 List III. This power cannot be denied on the ground that it has some effect on an industry controlled under entry 52 List T. Effect is not tho same thing as subjectl-matter. If State Act, otherwise valid, has effect on matter in List I it does not cease to be legislation with respect to an entry in List II or List Ill. The object of ss. 4 and 5 seems to be enable the State to acquire all the lands whic'.1 do not fall within the categories (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4(i). These provi-sions are really incidental to the exercise of the power of acquisition. The State cannot be denied power to ascertain what land should be acquired by it in the public interest. [369 C-Dl

The fact that the plantation was run as an integrated unit cannot impinge upon and :take away the legislative power of the State in respect of List II entry 18" 370 [F-G]

Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 393, 420 and Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Attnrney General, [1950) A.C. 122, 123, 140, applied.

393, 420

Baiinath Kedai v. State of Blhar, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100, Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 712 and State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Damodar Patilrhdnd, [19681 3 S.C.R. 712, referred to.

There was no r~pugnance between the provisi'?ns of the i'!'p~gned Act and the Tea Act. It was said that there is conthct ~use 1t 1s the T-:a Board and not the Land Board, which should determme what land is necessary for the efficient working of the plantation; but Parliament has not chosen even if it could., to say so. [373G-Hl

Paresh Chandra Chatterjee v. The State of Assam and Another, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 88, applied.

(ii) On the material placed before the C',0urt it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fell within the expression 'J anmam right'. It is stated in Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume IV there are no lands that do not belong to Janmam and the Sircar becomes Janmi by escheat, confiscation or otherwise. The effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1899 must be that the Sircar became the Janmi. '[376F]

Kava/appara Kottarathil Kocltuni v. State of Madras, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887 and Sukanuram Sabbayo!!am v. State of Kara/a, A. I. R. 1963 Kerala I 01. referred to.

(iii) From the Travancore Land Rev1mue Manual it would appear that the State grants like Kanan Devan Hills Concession and Trn square Miles Concession and Munro Lands, wer~ treated under tho heading 'Pandaravaka Lands', i.e., land belonging to the Si'rcar. It was held by this Court in Pushothaman Nambudri's case that Pandaravaka Verum· pattam lands could be regarded as local equivalent of an estate under cl. (2) of Art. 31A. If it is held that the land in question does not fall within the expression 'janmam right' it may possibly be covered by the decision of this C<>urt in Purus/1ottam Namboodri's case but as no argu-ments were addressed on this point it was not necessary for the Court to express its final opinion. [379C-Dl

Purushothaman Nambudri v. Sdre of Kera/a, [1962] Supp. l S.C.R. 753. referred to.

(iii) The. three purposes mentioned in s. 9 namely (1) reservation of land for promotion of agriculture; (2) rese:rvation of land for the welfare of agricultural population and ( 3) assignment of remaining lanJs to agri· c.ulturists and agricultural labourers, were covered. by the exp'fession "agrarian reform" and the legislation was protected from challenge under Art. 31·A. [382~

Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sarina, [1968] 1 S.L.R. 561, P. Vajmvaiu /lfodaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras, f19651 1 S.C.R. 614 and Ranjit Singh v. State of Puniab, fl965J 1 S.C.,R. 82.

The wide wording of the first two purposes did not carry them beyond the. concept of _'agrarian reform'. The definition of 'common purpose' which was s11stamed by this Court in Ranfit Singh's case shows that the purposes susf'ained thereby would come under either the express "pro-motion of agriculture" or ''welfare of agricultural population" in s. 9, Indeed some would fall under both. F<Yr instance, reservation df lands for manure pits, water-works or wells, viHage water courses or water

channels and grazing grounds would promote agriculture; schools and playgrounds, dispensaries, public latrines etc. would be for the welfare of the agriculturists, [381CJ

If the State were to use lands for purposes which have no direct con-nection with the promotion of agriculture or welfare of agricultural popu-lation the State could be restrained from using the lands for these pur-poses. Any fanciful connectioff with these purposes would not be enough.

If the two purposes were understood to mean that these include only "common purposes', whicl\. were sustained by this Court and purposes similar thereto it would be difficult to say that they are not for agrarian reform. In sense agrarian reform is wider than land reform. lt includes besides land reform something more and something more is illustrated by the dtfinition of "common purpose" which was sustainea by this ·court in Ranjit Slngh's case. [381E-FJ

The third object-settlement of agriculturists and agricultural labour-is cleady covered by the expression "agrarian reform". The main object Qf agrarian reforms has been to acquire excess land and settle landless la_llQurers and agriculturists. [382B-CJ

The main object

Ranjit Singh v. Slate of Punjab, [1965.] 1 S.C.R. 82 and Staie of Uttar Pradesh v. Raia Anand, f'l967] I S.C.R. 362, applied.

Deputy Comn1ission·-r and Collector, Kan1rup v. Durga Nath Sarina fl9681 I S.0.R, 561 and P. Vajravalu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Col· lector, Madr~s, f1965] I S.C.R. 82, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 44 of 1971.

Under Article 32 of the Consiitution of India for enforcement of the FundamentarRights.

•}.:~>c. Chagla, A. J, Rana, Joy Joseph, B. Datta, J. JJ. Dada-ch'anjl, 0, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the petitioner.

M. M. Abdul Khader, Advocate-General for the State of Kerala,

V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Verghese Kaliath and K. M. K. Nair, for the respondent.

J. B. Dadachanji, for the interveners.

The ,Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Sikri, C.J. Two main points .arise in this petition under art. 32 of the Constitution, brought by the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the petitioners ( 1) Whether the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 5 of 1971 )-hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act-is within the legislative competence of the State . ·of Kerala· and (2) whether the impugned Act is protected from challenge 'under art. 31A of the Constitution, and if so, to what extent. ·

The petitioner is in possession of an area of approximately 1 27 904 acres commonly known as the 'Concession Area' lying c~ntlguously n{ the Kannan Devan Hills village. The petitioner

The petitioner

grows arul manufactures tea in the plantation set up and developed by it. Tlie petitioner's predecessor-in-title was one Mr. John Danial Munro, who obtained, what is called, the first Pooniat Concession from Punhatil Kayikal Kela Vanna Valuja Raja, on July 11, 1877 (Mithunam 20, 1052). This Concession recited that an application was made for the grant of the above property to the Raja for coffee cultivation. The Concession conveyed the properties in consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. It was further stipu' lated in the Concession that "you shall! clear and remove the jungles, and reclaim the waste lands within the said boundaries, and cultivate them with coffee up to the year 1058 and from the .year 1059, pay our rent collector yearly rent at the rate of 3,000 British Rupees." Various other conditions were mentiqned but it is not ilece.Ssary to refer to them because this Concession was superseded by another agreement called the Second Pooniat Con-session.

Before we refer to the terms of the Second Poo11iat Conces· sion, we may mention that H.H. the Maharaja executed deed of ratification, dated November 28, 1878, by which the Government ratified the First Pooniat Concession dated July 11, 1877. This deed .of ratification laid down the terms and conditions in regard to Government assessment and other matters. under which the Government permitted the grantee to hold the land. These terms and conditions were declared in the Deed to be independent of any rents or payments due to the Poonjar Chief under the. Grantee's Agreement with him.

Clause 5 of the Deed of Ratificati<>n, is important. It pro-vides, infer alia, that "the grantee can appropriate to his own use within the limits of the grant all timber except the following and such as may hereafter be reserved l)amely, Teak, Cole Teak, Blackwood, Bhony, Karoonthaly, Sandalwood; should he carry any timber without the limits of the grant it will b.~ subject to the payment of Kooteekanom, ·or Customs Duty ........ "

The eleventh clause reads :

"The land granted shall be hel.d in ,perpetuity as .. heritable or transferable property, but every case· of transfer of the. grant by the grante1: shall be irn,mediately made known to the Sircar, who shall have the right of apportioning the tax, if portion of the holding is transferred."

The fwelfth clause stipulates :

"The discovery of usefu~ mines: and treasures within the limits of the grant shall be communicated to the Sircar, and the grantee shall in respect to such mines and treasures, abide by the decision of the Sircar."

The sixteenth clause provides :

"The grantee shall be bound to pres~rve the forest trees growing on the banks of the principal streams run-ning through the tract to the extent of fifty yards in breadth on each side of the stream, the underwood only being permitted to be cleared and coffee planted instead. Similarly he shall also be bound to preserve the trees about the crest of the hill to the extent of quarter of mile on each side."

On August 2, 1886. the agreement called the Second Pooniat Concession was entered .into modifying the previous deed of rati-fication. It appears that by this time company called the North Travancore Land Planting and Agricultural Society, Ltd. had acquired the rights in the said land from John Danial Munro. The Land Revenue Manual (Vol. 3, Part I Revised Edition 1936, p 7) summarises the main provisions.

For our purposes we may only mention the following provi-sions of the deed :

( 1) Assesment of one-half of British Rupee per annum on every acre of land, other than grass land, which is opened up for the purpose of cul-tivation or otherwise.

( 2) Assessment of two annas and eight pies per annum on every acre of grass land brought under cultivation or taken \IP for homesteads and farmsteads, or reserved as shooting reserves or for the grazing of cattle or for any other pur-poses.

( 6) The Society may use and appropriate to its own use within the limits of the Concession all timber except teak, cole-teak, blackwood, •.~bony (Karunthaly) and sandalwood, but should not fell any timber beyond what is necessary for clearing the ground for cul.tivation or for build-ing, furniture and machinery, within the limits of the grant. No unvalued timber or articles manufactured therefrom should be carried out-side the'!imits of the grant except in conformity with the rules of the Forest and Customs Depart-ments for the time being in force. (l 0) The land is to be held in perpetuity as heritable or transferable property but every case of trans-H fer of the grant by the Society should be imme-diately made known by the Society to the Gov-ernment.

( 11) On the discovery by the Society of any useful or valuable mines, minerals or treasures within the limits of the grant, the same should at once be communicated to the Government and the Society should, in respect to such mines, minerals and treasures, abide by the dc:cision of the Govern-ment.

Royal Proclamation was made on September 24, (Kanni 9, 1075). It recite~ :

"Whereas wci deem it expedient to clearly di:clare the position of this State in respect of the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills, we are pleased . to declare as follows :

(1) The tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hiils is an integral portion of our territory and all rights over it belong to and vest in us.

(2) The inhabitants of the said tract and all others whom it may concern ar1~ hereby informed and warned that they are not to pay any taxes, rents or dues, or make any other payment to the Poon-jar Chief or his representatives or to any person other than an officer of our GoYernment autho-rised in this behalf, in respect of anything in, upon or connected with the said tract, with the exception, however, of payment of rupee three thousand per annum from the succeessors in interests of the late Mr. J. D. Munro of London and Peermade now being paid to the said Chief in virtue of Lease deed executed by the said Chief in favour of the said late Mr. J. D. Munro on the 11th July, 1877, and which we are pleased to permit the said Chief to continue to receive.

(3) The lands within the said tract will be dealt with by our Government in the: same manner as lands in other parts of our territory with such modifica-tions as the circumstances and conditidns of the said tr~ct may require and all taxes, tents and ?ues hitherto paid, and that may hereafter be imposed by our Government shall, with the exception of the sum of rupees three thousand aforesaid, be paid by the occupants of lands within the said tract whose occupation has been or may be recognized or confirmed by our Gov-ernment, and of such portions of the said tract as may from time to time hereafter, with the per-

mission of our Government, be occupied, to the Officers of our Government who may be authoris-ed in this behalf."

According to the Land Revenue Manual (Vol. III Pt. I page

9) "this Proclamation was the outcome of an arrangement made by the Government, with the Poonjar Chief for the surrender of certain proprietary rights which he had been exercising over the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills."

We have set out these facts in detail because it will be neces-sary to appreciate the significance of the documents in order to decide the question whether these lands fall within expression 'Janmam right' in art. 3 lA .of the Consrttution.

According to the petitioner it has at all times been holding, cultivating, enjoying and dealing with the Concession Land as the absolute owner thereof. The petitioner further alleges th.at it has established 23 tea estates, with factories on each estate for the manufacture of tea, hospitals, quarters· and township, and shop-ping centres and is employing approximately 18,500 persons for the running of the said estates. The breakup of the area of 1,27, 904 acres was given as follows :

Tea Estate~ 1. Tea Planted area 23,570,95 acres 2. Fuel area 17,851 ·55 3. Building sites, roads, Worl<ers gardens, Manner Township . 2,605 ·35 4. Grazing land 1,453 ·75 5. Swamps and Streams 2,407 ·36 6. Uncultivable lands, rocks, slips, barren lands, ridges etc. 6,789 ·51 31,107 ·52 31,107 ·52 acres

7. Lands interspersed within the boundaries of the tea plantation cOnsidered necessary for the protection and efficient management of the tea plantation 23,'!04 ·00 acres Totul: 78,082 •47 8. Forest Area 22,311 -00 9. Set apart for Wild Life Preservation 21,353 ·60 10. Other grass lands 6,157 ·49

1,27,904 ·56

We may now notice !he provisions of the impugned Act. The preamble reads as follows :

"Whereas the lands comprising the entire revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the Devicolam taluk. of

the Kottayaaa district had been given on lease by the then Poonjar Chief to late Mr . .T-Olm Da.nid ~unro of London and Peermade on the 11th day of July, 1877, for coffee cultivation;

And Whereas the right, title and interest of the lessor had been assumed by the former Government of Tra-vancore;

And Whereas by such asswnption the lands have become the property of the former Government of Tra-vancore;

And Whereas the Goverrun1~nt of Kerala have be-come the successor to the former Government of Travan-core;

And Whereas large extent of agricultural lands in that village has not been converted into plantations or utilised for purposes of plantatio1l and such lands are not required for the purposes of the 1:xisting plantation:

And Whereas the Government consider that such agricultural lands should be resumed for the distn'bution thereof for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto."

It would be noticed that in the preamble the State claims that the right, title and interest of the Poonjar Chief-had been assumed by the former Government of Travancore and the lands had be-come the property of the former Government of Travancore and now . the Government of Kerala. It will also be noticed that the object is to resume agricultural lands for their distributicin for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto.

"Plantation" is defined in s. 2 ( f) o.f the inlpugned Act ;

" "Plantation" means any land used by person principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rub-ber, cardamom. or cinnamon (hereinafter relerred to as "Plantation crops" ".

Section 3 may be set out in full

"3. Vesting of Possession of certain/ands: (1) Not-withstanding anythin~ contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other docu-ment, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and ( 3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the possession of all lands situate in th.e Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devicolam taluk of the Kottayam district shall stand transferred to and vest in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and 6-Ll286 Sup CI/73

l~tere'St pf the lessees and all other persons including ngnts of mort~gees and holtlers of encumbri!nt:es, in respect <1f such lands, shall stand eit.tinguished.

( 2) 2) Nothing contained in sub-section

( l) shall

( 2) 2) app1y in respect ot-

( a) plantations, other than plantations belonging to trespassers;

(b) bU!ldings, bther than buildings belongini; to tres-passers, and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buildings;

( c) play-grounds and burial and burning ground~; and

(a) lands irl the possession of th, Central Govern-ment or . any State Ooverntnent or the Kcrala State Elcctticity Board.

( 3) Nothing contained ln sub-section

( 1) shall

apply in respect of so much extent of land held by lessee under his personal cultivation as is within the ceil-ing limit applicable to hlm under any Jaw for the time being in force or any building or structure standing there-on or appurtenant thereto."

It will be noticed that what the section vest~ in the Govern-ment is not only agricultural lands but all lands situated in the Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devicolam taluk of the Kottayam district. It extinguishes the rights of the lessees and other persons and vests the lands in the State subject to some exceptions which are cointained in sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 3. Sub-section (2) exempts plantations. Sub-section ( 3) dues not have any bearing on the problem before us.

Se1:tion 4 is peculiar provision which has led the counsel for the petitioner to argue vehemently about the legislative compe-te.nee of the State. It reads thus :

"4. Restoration of possession of lands in artain cases.-( 1) Where the person in possession of planta-tion considers that any lands, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3,-

(~) [is ][·necessary for any purpose ancillary to the ][cul-]tivation of plantation crops in sucli, plantation or for the preparation of the same for the market; or

( b) being agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area 1;ultivated with plantation crops, is necessary for the protection and effi-cient management of such cuTtivafion; or

(.c) is necessary for the preservation of an eXi.sting plantation, he may, within sixty days from the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, apply to the Land Board for the restoration of posSeSsion of such !anti.

~ 2 y An .application under sub-section ( 1) shall be in such fonn as may be prescribtd·.

(3) On .rcce.ipt of an application under sub~section ( 1 ) , the Land Board shall, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and after such inquiry as it deems necessary by order dete1'1iline tile extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application, and such order shall be final.

( 4) As soon as m:.y be after detennining the extent of land necessary for the pilrpdse or purposes specified in the application under sub-secticn ( 1), the Land Board shall cause such land to be demarcated and put the applicant in possession of such land'.

( 5) Any person put in possession 0f any land under sub-section ( 4) shall be entitled to possess that land on the same terms and subject to the same conditions on or subject to which he was holding such land immediately before the appointed day."

It will be seen thats. 4 proceeds on the basis that certain lands, which have vested in the State under s. 3, may be necessary for the efficient carrying on of the plantation. procedure is laid down by which the Land Board shall detennine the extent of land necessary for purposes mentioned ins. 4(a), (b) and (c) to be speeified in the application of the landholder, and direct restora-tion of possession.

Section 5 alleviates the rigour of s. 4 by giving the Collector power to remove the hardship, if any, on the management of the plantation on the vesting of any land under sub-s. (1) of s. 3. Section 8 provides that no compensation shall be payable for the extinguishment under sub-s. ( 1) of 1. 3 of the right, title and interest of the lessees or other persons or of the rights of mortga-. gees or holders of encumbrances.

Section 9 may be set out in 'full It reads thus

"9. Assignment of /ands.-(1) The Government, s~all, after.reserving such extent of the land, the posses-s10n of which has vested in the Government under sub-secti~ ( 1) of section 3 (other than lands, the possession of which has been restored under section ( 4), as may be necessary for purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural popula-tion to be settled on such lands, assign ·on registry the remaining lands to agriculturists and agricultural labou-rers in such manner, on such terms and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed.

(2) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate their power of assignment under sub-section ( 1 ) to the Collector, subject to such restrictions and control as may be specified in the notification."

The position taken by the State in its reply is as follows : The petitioner is not an absolute owner, but only lessee under the Government, especially since the Proclamation issued by H.H. the Maha.raja. The lands to which the provisions of the Act apply, fall within the definition of 'estate' under art. 31A(2) of the Cons-titution. If the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands sub-ject to levy of basic tax, as contehded, the lands held by the peti-tioner are 'estate' because they are held in Janmam rights or at any rate as the local equivalent of 'estate' in its basic concept as under-stood in the decisions of this Court falling under art. 31A(2)(a)-(i) of the Constitution. In the alternative it is alleged that treat-ing the lands as lease-hold under the State, these are undoubedly lands held or let for the purposes of agriculture or purposes ancil-lary thereto coming wit!:lin the inclusive definition of 'estate' under art. 31A(2) (a) (iii) of the Constitution. It is denied that. the lands were held primarily for development of the petitioner's tea industry. It is alleged that the petitioner had used large tracts of land for diverse agricultural purposes as was clear from the aver-ments in the petition. It is further asserted that the impugned legislation is law relation to the agrarian reform.

Duruig the course of the hearing, the petitioner's counsel said that he was willing to argue on the basis. that the petitioner was lessee and not full proprietor. After we had heard the argu-ments for some time and it became necessary to adjourn the case, the State obtained permission to amend its reply and raised the point that the lands of the petitioner were '.estate' within the pur-view of art. 31A(2) (a)(i) being janmam right. We may repro-duce the relevant paras. "The Raja of Poonjar was admittedly the Janmi of the said lands at the time of letting as per Annexures & to the Writ Petition. By. the Royal Proclamation of 1899 (Annexure R-1) the Janmam right of the lessor, the Poonjar Chief,

got vested in the Government of Travancore.'" [Para 4 ( 1) ]. "After the said vesting the writ petitioner is lessee under Jaruni-the Sircar, the State." [Para 4(2)]. Para 4(4) refers to ·pages 314 and 315 of Travancore State Manual-Vol. III-. where 'it is recorded that the lands of Poonjar Chief are Janmam lands. Further reference is made to Travancore Land Revenue :.B Manual, Vol. IV, which we will discuss little later.

· In the sur-rejoinder affidavit the petitioner denies that Poonjar Chief or Raja was the J anmi of the land covered by the impugned legislation. It is further alleged that "even asuming without admitting that the Poonjar Chief was Janmi, the Janmam rights of the Chief became vested in the Sircar by the Royal Proclama-c tion of 18 99 ( Annexure R-1 ) , the lands became part of and merg-ed with the Sircar land. The Sircar as the overlord and the Ruler of the State became the sole owner of the land and the petitioner became permanent and perpetual lessee of Sircar with heritable and alienable rights. The impugned legislation in no way deals with the Janmam rights, if any, vested in the Sircar." It is fur-ther stated that "in any event, without prejudice to the other con-tentions, it is rnbmitted 'that Article 31A(2) (a) (i) speaks only of "Janmam right" and not "Janmam" land as such'."

We may first deal with the quesltion of legislative compet,ence. We have set out the relevant provisions of the impugned legislation. It seems to us clear that in pith and substance it is law dealing with entry 18 of List II and entry 42 of List Ill. Entry 18 reads :

"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 agri-F cultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.''

Entry 42 List III reads :

"Acquisition and requisitioning of propetty."

This Court has upheld the legislative competence of States to deal with land reforms under entry 18 of List II and entry 42 of List III in various cases.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that ss. 4 and 5 of the impugned Act are a' law with respect to entry 52 List I. These provisions, according to him, regulate the carrying on of tea industry, within the competence of Parliament, by con-H trolling the land available for tea plantation. · He says that it is impossible to run an efficient plantatiion except by having sufficient land (I) for purposes ancillary to cultivation and plantation of the

crop and ( 2) for the preparation of the same for the market. He says that it is also necessary to have land interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation for the preserva-tion of the existing plantation. He urges that if the effect of the legislation is to control the working of the tea plantation the le~is­Iation must be regarded a~ legislation with respect to entry 52 List I.

The learned counsel has drawn our attention to various reports to show that the plantation is self-contained unit of organisation. In para 1.11 of the Report of the Study Group for Plantation (Tea) it is stated :

"1.11. The cultivation and manufacture of tea do

not exhaust the activities associated with tea plantations. typical plantation covers wide area, having large resident population in number of settlements. Manage-ment of plantations involves construction and mainte-nance of roads and buildings, running of hospitals, schools, creches, and canteens, etc. and in miniature form, transport and public health activities. In short, plantation is self-contained unit of organisation."

In the report of P. C. Borooah Committee on Tea Industry following measures were recommended :

"1. 18. Taking into condderation the difficulties

faced by the industry because of, Government' enact-ments and in view of our recommendation in regard to the necessity for undertaking extensions of plantings to achieve the plan targets laid down by Government and the need for replacement to increase foreign exchange earnings of the country, the Committee recommends that th.e following measures should be taken by Govern-ment:-

(i) The Central Government should take steps to

convene conference of all representatives· of tea pro-ducing State .Governments to frame well-considered policy in regard to land required for expanding tea pro-duction. · Where land is proposed to he resumed by the State Uovernments concerned, the Tea Board should be taken into consultation.

(ii) The principles underlying all resumptfon ofland'

should be such as to ensure that tea estates would have enoug/1 land available for extensions and for other ancil-h1ry purpose for their viability and protection. Land within an estate should in no case be taken oY~r as the· integfity of estates must at all costs be maintained."

In the Second Fi'.'.e Year Plan, whil.e considering; the question of exemption from ceilings one of the factors t~en into a".Count was the "integrated nature of operations, especially whe:e mdus-trial and agricultural work are undertaken as composite enter-prise." It was recommended that "if these consi~erations a:e kept in view there would appear to be an advantage m exemptmg the following categories of farms from the operations of ceilings which may be proposed :

( 1) tea, coffee and rubber plantation ......

It seems to us clear that the State has .legislative competence to legislate on entry 18 List II and ~ntry 42 List III. This power cannot be denied on the ground that it has some effect on an indus-try controlled under entry 52 List I. Effect is not the same thing as subject-matter. If State Act, otherwise valid, has effect on matter in List I it does not cease to be legislation with respect to an entry in List lI or List III. Tlle objec:t of ss. 4 and S seems to be to enable the State to acquire all the lands which do not fall within the ca~egories (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4(1). These provi-sions are really incidental to the exercise of the power of acquisi· tion. The State cannot be denied power to ascertain what land should be acquired by it in the pubJi,c interest.

The case of Baijnath Kedai v. State of Bihar(I) relied on has no relevance. It was held in that case that entry 23 List II was subject to entry 54 of the Union List and once declaration was made .and the extent laid down, the subject of legislation to the extent laid became an exclusive subject for legislation by Parlia-ment. The scope of entry 52 of the Union List is slightly di«e-, rent. Once it is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest to control the industry, Parliament can legislate on that particular industry aud the States would loae their power to legislate on that indusry. But thi!1 would not prevent the States from legislating on &objects .other than that particular industry.

In Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar flradesh([2 ]) Bhagwat,i, J., observed:

"Industry in the wide sense of the .term would be capable of comprising three different aspects : ( 1) raw materials which are an integral part of the industrial procelili, (2) the process of IlllllJUfacture or production, anci ( 3 ) the distribution of the ;products of the industry. The raw materials would be goods which would be com-prised in Entry 27 of List II. The process of manufac-

ture or production would be comprised in Entry 24 of List II except where the industry was controlled indus-try when it would fall within Entry 52 of List I and the products of the industry would also be comprised in Entry 27 of List II except where they were the products of the controlled industries when they would fall within entry 33 of List III. This being the position, it cannot be said that the legislation which was enacted by the Centre in regard to sugar and sugarcane could fall within Entry 52 of List I. Before sugar industry became controlled industry, both sugar and sugarcane fell within Entry 27 of List II but, after declaration was made by Parliament in 1951 by Act LXV of 1951, sugar industry became controlled industry and the product of that industry viz., sugar was comprised in Entry 33 of List III taking it out of Entry 27 of List II."

In Harakchand RatOJ1chand Ban:thia v. Union of Jndia([1]), Tikka Ram's case (supra) was referred to but the Court held that it was not necessary for the purposes of that case to attempt to define the expression "industry" precisely or to s[1]tate exhaus· tively all its different aspects. The Court observed :

"But we are satisfied in the present case that the manufacture of gold ornaments by g0ldsmiths in India is "process of systematic production" for trade or manu-facture and so falls within the connotation of the word "industry" in the appropriate legislative entries."

In State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Damodar Patilchand([1]) the point was left open whether the State legislature had or had not the authority to legislate adversely 011 matters falling within entry 52 List I.

None of these cases assist the petitioners.

The fact that the plantation is run as an integrated unit was strongly relied on but this cannot impinge upon and take away the legislative power of the State in respect of List II entry 18. The Privy Council in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Y. Attorney Ge11eral(') dealing with similar matter observed:

"But their Lordships can find neither principle nor authority to support the competence of the Parliament of canada to legislate on matter which clearly falls within the enumerated heads in s. 92 and cannot be brought

(2) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 712.

(1) [1970] I S.C.R. 419.

within any of the enumerated heads in s. 91 merely be-cause the activities of one of the parties concerned in the matter have created unified system which is wide-spread and important in the Dominion."

The facts in that case are set out briefly in the headnote as

follows:

"The appellant, the Canadia.n Pacific ~y., . Co., which owned and managed the Empress Hotel in Victo-ria, British Columbia, while not denying that the regula-{ion of hours of work was ordinarily matter of "pro-perty and civil rights in the province" under head 13 of s. 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, and accordingly within the legislative competence of the pro-vincial legislature, contended, inter-alia, that the com-pany's activities had become such an extensive and impor-tant element in the national economy of Canada that the Dominion Parliament was entitled under the general powers conferred by the first part of s. 91 of the Act of 1867 to regulate all the affairs of the company, even where that involved legislating in relation to matters exclusively reserved to the prov:mcial legislatures by s. 92."

It is not necessary to consider the situation where State legis-lation on topic in List II makes th·~ control of industry by the Union virtually impossible. No such question arises now.

Coming now to the question of repugnancy : The object of the Tea Act, 1953, is to provide for the control by the Union of the tea industry, including the control, in pursuance of the inter-national ai;reement now in force, of the cultivation of tea in and the export of tea from India. Chapter II sets up Tea Board. Section 10 sets out the functions of the Board. Broadly the duty of the Board is to promote by such measures as it thinks fit the development under the c0u: rol of the Central Government of tea industry. Measures contemplated are listed in sub-s. (2) as follows:

"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the pro-visions of sub-section (I ) , the measures referred to there-in may provide for-

( a) regulating the production and extent of cultiva-tion of tea;

(b) improving the quality of tea;

( c) promoting co-operative efforts among growers and manufacturers of tea;;

( d) undertaking, assisting or encouraging scientific, technolqgical and economic research and main-taining or assisting in the maintenance of ciemons-tration farms and manufacturing stations;

( e) assisting in the control of insects and other pests and diseases affecting tea;

(f) regulating the sale and export of tea; (g) training in tea tasting and fixing grad~ standards of tea;

(h) increasing the consumption in India and else-where of tea and carrying on propaganda for that purpose;

(i) registering and licensing of manufacturers, brokers, tea waste dealers and persons engaged in the business of blending tea;

(j) improving the marketing of tea in india and elsewhere;

(k) collecting statistics from growers, manufacturers, dealers and such other persons as may be pres-cribed on any matter relating to the tea industry; the publication of statistics so collected or por-tions thereof or extracts therefrom;

(I) securing better working conditions and the pro-visions and improvement of amenities and incen-tives for workers;

(m) such other matters as may be prescribed."

Chapter III contains provisions to enable control to be exer-cised over the extension of tea cultivation. Section 15(1)(a) proceeds on the basis that land which is planted with tea can be compulsorily acquired for in that eventuality the owner of the tea estate in which such land is situated is permitted to apply to the Board for permission to plant tea on land not planted with tea. Tea Act does not prohibit voluntary sale or compulsory acquisi-tion.

We may mention that no body has challenged the validity of the Tea Act and we are proceeding on the basis that the Act is valid. In this connection entry 14 of List I ( ...... implement-ing of treaties ...... ) may be kept in mind. If the Act is with-in the competence of Parliament and the impugned Act is within the competence of the State the petitioners must show that the impugned Act is repugnant to the Tea Act but we can see no con-flict between the provisions of the impugned Act and the Tea Act.

In Paresh Chandra Chatterjee v. The State of Assam tmd' Another(!) the validity of Assam Land (Requisition and Acqui-sition) Act, 1948 was challenged partly on the ground that it was ultra vires the State Legislature insofar as it provided for the requisitioning and acquisition of tea estate. As it was pre-Constitution Act and there was no Federal Law then declaring that the development of tea industry was expedient in the public interest, the Act was held to be constitutionally valid. .The Cotii:t then examined the question whether the impugned A-ct would con-tinue ii1 force under art. 372 of the Constitution in face of the Tea Act of 1953. This Court held that the impugned Act provided only for requisition or acquisition of lands in public interest and it had nothing to do with tea industry. After examining the scheme of the Act, Subba Rao. J., observed :

"It is, therefore. manifest that the Tea Act mainly concerned with the development of the tea indW?try, and it has nothing to do with the requisition or acquisition of lands, though the said lands may form part of tea estate or used for purposes incidental to the tea industry. Indeed, s. 15 (1) (b) of the T~a Act provides for the contingency of part of land on which tea is planted being compulsorily acquired under the pi ovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Ai.:t I of 1894) or by any other law for the time being in force and no longer car-E ries tea. In such an event, the said section authorises the owner of the tea estate in which such land is situate to apply to the Board for permission to plant tea on land not planted with tea. The Tea Act, therefore, not only does not expressly prohibit the acquisition of any land, but also in express terms provided for the replacement of the area acquired by other land for the purpose of t~a plantation."

"A comµarative study of both the Acts makes it clear that the two Acts deal with different matters and· were pa~sed for different purposes."

It was said that there is conflict because it is the Tea Board and not the Land Board, which should deterinine what land is necessary for the efficient working of the plantation but Padiameat has not chosen, even if it could, to say so.

For the reasons mentioned above we have come to the con-H clusion that the State Legislature was competent to enact the impugned Act itnd that it is not repugnant to the Te<1. bet.

~oming to the second point, namely whether the impugned Act Is protected from challenge under art. 31A of the Constitution three points arise out of the contention~ of the parties : ( l) ~

the lands ecquired fall within the expressicn "janmam right" in art. 31A(2) (a) (i) ? (2) If not, do they fall within the expression "estate" as defined in art. 31A(2)? and (3) If not, do any of the lands fall. within the lands described in art. 31A(2) (a) (iii)? Art. 31A(2) may be set out for the sake of convenience.

"31A(2) Iu this article,-

. · {a) the expression "estate" shall; in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local eq tivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include-

( i) any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the States of Madras and Kerala, ·any Janmam right;

(ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;

(iii) any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cul-tivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans;

(b) the expression "rights", in relation to an estate,

shall include any rights vesting in proprietor, sub-proprietor, underproprietor, tenure-holder, (raiyat, underraiyat) or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue."

Dealing with the first point there is no doubt that the Poonjar Raja was janmi when tfie First Concession was granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, _and if nothing had trans-pired after that the whole lands would have fallen within the expression 'jamnam right'. But the Royal Proclamation dated September 24, 1899, changed the situation. The Poonjar Chief surrendered eertain rights whic~ he had been exercising over the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Mills. What is the effect of this surrender? According to the learned Advocate-General, the janmam rights still subsisted and instead of the Poonjar Chief H.H. the Maharaja became the janmi.

The nature of 'janmam right' has been examined by this Court previously in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochun! v. State of Mad-ras(I). Subbta Rao, J., as he then was, speakmg for the Court, observed:

"Under the definition, any janmam right in Kerala i.; an ··estate". janmam right is the freehold interest in property situated in Kerala. Moor in his "Malahar Law and Custom" describes it as hereditary proprietor-ship. janmam interest may, therefore, be described as "proprietary interest of landlord in lands", and such janmam right is described as '"estate" in the Constitu-tion. Substituting. "janmam right" in place of "estate" in cl. 2(b), the "rights" in art. ~·IA( 1 )(a) will include the rights of proprietor and subsordinate tenure-holders in respect of janmam right. It follows that the extinguishment or modification of right refers to the .rights of proprietor or subordinate tenure-holder in respect of janmam right. proprietor called the janmi or his subordinate tenure-holder has certain defined rights in "janmam right''. Land-tenures in Malabar are established by prec1~ndents or immemorial usage. Janmam right is fre~hold interest in property and the landlord is called "janmi". He can create many subordinate interests or tenures therein."

In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume 4 it is-stated :

"9. Janmi differs from suc:h landlords in that he does not derive his title to lands from the Sircar & Co. His title to the J anmam lands is inherent\ ..............

12. Janmam lands are precisdy what are in Europe called allodial properties as contra-distinguished from feudal.

13. It must be clear from what has been stated that all the lands in the Travancore belonged to body of janmis. There are no lands that do not belong to some janmi or other.

14. 3e it remembered that tht: Sircar itself is one of these janmis, it having come to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways. It is only great janmi, great in the sense that its janmam property is extensive.

15. If any person wants land in Travancore he must obtain it from, and hold it of, some one of th~ body of Janmis, i.e. from the Sircar, which is the Chief Janmi, or from some other Janmi." (Sir T. Madava Row's Memo.)

In Mr. Kunhiramam Nair's Memo on Land Tenures it is .stated :

"Af presertt the Sir car is the ll!rgest J anmi in the . State. The' jamiiam lands of all th'e petty Rajas sub-dued in the last few centudes and of several Madampies, have lapsed to the State, and' other causes such as escheat 8t c, have tended to increase the extent of the Janmam pos!!tssion of the SircilT. About three-fourths of the whole !amt iri the State belbng on Janmam to the Si'rcar, the remaining one-foutth being disiribt\ted among the classes mentioned in para 3 2."

It is interesting to note that in certain parts of Madras Janmam Tights existed and the Government lands were called government janman lan<js. (See Government Order No. 1902 Revenue dated November 1; 19.26). P;tra 3 of that ord~ deals with the janmam .estates and reads· as under :

"3. JANMABHOGAM.-Patagraph 11 of the Board's Proceedings-Lands have hitherto been des-cribed as-

(a) Government Janmam, i.e. lands which are held directly . from the Government and on which taram assessment and janmabhogam are paid to the Government and

(b) private janmam, i.e. lands which are held directly from the Government and on which taram assessment bur not janmabhogam is paid to the Government."

It seems to us that on the material placed before us it is diffi-cult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression "Janmam right". If, as stated in Travarlcore Land Revenue Manual Volume IV, there are no lands that do not belong to Janmi and foe Sircar becomes J anmi by gift, escheat con-fiscation or otherwise, the effect of the Royal Proclal!lation of 1899 must be that the Sircar became the Janml. We are not concern-ed here with lands which were held by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Sukapuram Sabluiyogam v. State of Kera la ( [1]) to be held under Ryotwari tenure after the introduction of the R yotwari Settlement in the Mafabar area of Kerala State.

Assuming that the lands do not fall with 'Jarunam Right', we may noW' deal with the second point : In the Travancore Land Revenue Mllritfal, Vol. III, Revised Edition, 1936, Registered Lands are dt:Scribed as follows :

''R.e8isteTeli lands ltte land$ registered in the revenue aeeOlltlts as ll:eld by ur gtantea to indivldttills, families, corporations or institutiom, and colnptise all tile different kinds of tenitres bearing either the full assessment or woolly (ff partially f~ of asaessment. These lands eolnpriSe nbt onit tl!e ateas brouglit under cadastral sur-vey but include also coffee, tea, rubber and other estates, cardamom gardens and other special grants outside the limits of cadastral survey."

The Registered Lands indudtl; inter aim, (a) Pand11ravaka lands and (b) Janmam lands. Regarding Pandaravaka lands it iS stated:

"Pantlaravaka or Sircar lands are lands of which the Sta,e is tile landlord or the Jenmi and whatever rights whkli vest in !he ryots are tierived frotn tlie $ircat."

f{anan l)cvan Hills t:oneession is dealt with under this heading; i.e. Pandaravaka Lands.

Tl\e Janmam lands are dealt iiiith as fbllows :

"19• Deflnitian.-Jenmom land is defined in the Jcnmi md Kudiyart Regulation; V of 1071 as "land (other than Pandaravaka, Sripandaravaka, Kanduktishi dr Sirear Ikvaswom land, recognised as such in the Sjrcar accounts) which is either entirely exempt from Government tax or if assessed to Jltlblic revenue, is sub-ject t<> Rajabh<igam only, and the occupancy right in which is created for inoney consideration (Kanoin) and is also subject to the payment of Michavarain or cu$tO-mary dues and the payment of th'e renewal fees. "This definilion is irltended for the purposes of the Regulation, which regulates the relations between janmis and their Kanapattom tenants. Janmi has not only Kanapat-tpm tenaµats but has other tenants as well holding on Adiina, Anubhcigam, Thiruvulam and similar oth,er termres and th~. Regul~tion is not concerne~ with the latter class of tenants m whose case· the ordirtary law of landlord arid tenant is applicable. Revenue law, on the' other hand, makes no distinction between KanapattOih tenant _a'!-d ll?n-K_anapattom ienant if he holds ilrtder Janrni recgomsed m the revenue aecolmts. _ Hence for revenue .purposes, Jenmoin lands are farttls that are imtered m the revenue accounts under the heads of De-vasMmivak.a, .Bhifuriaswomvaka and Matlainpimat~ ·Vitfi i.e., fu say land to be di\Ssell «s Jertfubm llltid slrotild ha've been recoghised as · suc:h Iii the revettul! :accounts. The mere circumstance that land belOngs· ·

to Jenmi does not bring it under Jenmom -.re and

conversely the mere fact that Jannwm land is abiolutely transferred to non-Jenmi does not any the ICll detract from its original character. Jenmom lands are allodial properties and the proprietary right in them is oonsidered as inherent in the individual and not derived from the State."

It thus appears that the State grants like Kanan Devan Hills Concession and Ten Square Miles Concession, and Munro Lands, were treated under the heading 'Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.

The case of Pandaravaka lands from the erstwhile State of Cochin was considered by this Court in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kera/a('). Some of the lands in dispute there were classified by the land records maintained by the State as Pandara-vaka holdings while the remaining lands were classified as Pura-vaka holdings. The petitioner there claimed that the lands did not constitute an 'estate' under art. 31 ( 2 )(a). His case was that as regards Pandaravaka lands he was liable to pay rent to the State calculated as proportion of the gross yield of the pro-perties and the lands held by him as tenant under the State could not be an estate. It was further contended that he was not an intermediary between the State and the tiller of the soil and there-fore the lands did not come within the purview of art. 31 ( 2) (a) . Under clause 13 of the proclamation dated March 10, 1905, the holders of Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure acquired full rights to the soil of the lands and held them subject to the liability to pay State assessments. This Court, by majority, held that the holders of land held as Pandaravaka Verumpattom were proprietors of the lands and held the lands subject to the liability to pay the assess-ment to the State, and therefore Pandaravaka Verurnpattom would be regarded as local equivalent of an estate under cl. (2) of Art. ' 31A.

Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was, speaking for the Coqrt,

observed:

"It seems to us that the basic concept of the word "estate" is that the person holding the estate should be proprietor of the soil and should be in direct relation-ship with the State paying land revenue to it except where it is remitted in whole or in part. If therefore term is used or defined in any existing law in local area which corresponds to this basic concept of "estate" that would be the local equivalent of word "estate" in that area. It is not necessary that there must be ljn interme-diary in an estate before it can be called an estate within (I) [1%2] Supp. 1 S.C.R .753.

....,..

the meai.ing of Art. 31 ( 2 )(a) ; It is true that in many cases of estate such intermediaries exist, but there are many holders of small estates who cultivate their. lands without any intermediary· whatever. It is not the pre-sence of the intermediary that determines whether par-ticular landed property is an estate or not; what deter-mines the character of such prope.rty to be an estate is whether it comes within the definition of the word "estate" fn the existing law in partic~ar area or is for the purpose of that area the local equivalent of the word "estate" irrespective of whether there are intermediaries in existence or not."

It· seems that if it is held that the land does not fall within the expression 'janmam right' it may possibly be covered by the deci-sion of this Court in Purushothaman Nambudiri's case (Supra) but as arguments were not addressed to us on this point we do not express our final opinion.

The next question which arises is : If the lands acquired by the impugned Act are an estate, is the impugned Act law . for effecting agrarian reforms ? Section 9 of the impugned Act envisages three purposes :

( 1) reservation of lands for promotion of agriculture;

(2) reservation of land forthe welfare of agricultural population;

( 3) assignment of remaining lands to agriculturists and agricultural labourers.

Do the first two purposes fall within the concept of agrarian reforms?

Flood control and prevention of erosion are undoubtedly of great impOrtance for pr6moting agriculture and yet it was held by this Court in Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sarma([1]) that the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Act had no relation to agrarian reforms, land tenure or the elimination of intermediaries. Acquisition for housing scheme and slum clearance in the city of Madras, though of great social and economic importance, was not included in the concept of agrarian reform by this Court in . P. Vajravalu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras('J But wide meaning was given to the concept in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab ( •) . The transfer of Sham lat deh owned by the proprietors to the village panchayat for the purpose of man!lgement in the manner stated in the Consolidation of Holdings Act and

(l) [1968] l S.C.R .. S6l. (2) [1965] l S.C.R. 614.

dispensaries, hospitals, institutions, water-works or tube-wells may be managed and controlled bv the State Goveniment or not."

What are the implications of this

We are bound by the ju;dgment. What are the implications of this judgment ? All the purposes mentioned above were held to he comprised within the concept of agrarian reform.

It is urged that the wording of the first two purposes in s. 9

is too wide. But if we look at the definitiQll of ~·common J>W-pose'', which was sustained by this Court in Ranjit Sin1h's case, it shows that the purposes sustained there.by would COJl1e under either the expression "promotion of agriculture" or "welfare of agricultural population" in s. 9. Indeed some would fall under both. For instance, reservation of lands for manure pits, water-works or wells, village water courses or water channels· and grazing grounds would promote agriculture; schools and play-grounds, dispensaries, public latrines etc. would be for the welfare of agriculturists.

. If the State were to use lands for purposes which have no direct connection with the promotion of agriculture or welfare of agri-cultural population the State could be restrained from using the lands for those purposes. Any fanciful connection with these purposes would not be enough.

It s¥ems to us that if we read these two purposes to mean that these include only "common purposes", which were sustained by this Court and purposes similar thereto it would be difficult to say that they are not for agrarian reform. In sense agrarian refonn is wider than land reform. It includes besides land reform some-thing more and that something more is illustrated by the definition of "common purpose'', which was sustained by this Court in Ranjit Singh' s case ( supr<f).

In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Anand([1]), the acquisi-ed: tion of grant in the nature of Jagir was upheld. It was ..,,.._,_ v~>T "Mr. A. K. Sen further urges that the acquisition of the estate was not for the purposes of agrarian reforms because hundreds of square miles c>f forest are sought to . be acquired. But as we have held that the area in dis-· pute is grant in the nature of J agir or in am, its acquisi-tion like the acquisition of all Ja~irs, inams, or similar grants, was necessary step in the implementation of the ag;-iuian reforms and was clearly contemplated in • art. 31A."These observations must be understood in the light of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for the impugned Act in that case (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1964) had amended s. 3 ( 8) of that Act of 1950. This grant in the nature of the jagir stood in the same position as all the big zamindaris and jagirs in Uttar Pradesh. It has never been urged that the Act of 1950 was not measure of agrarian refom1.

The third object-settlement of agriculturists and agricultural labour-it seems to us, is clearly covered by the expression "agra-rian reforms". The main object of agrarian reforms has been to acquire excess land and settle landless labourers and agriculturists.

We are accordingly of the opinion that the three purposes-the first two reads as we have indicated-are covered by the expression "agrarian reform" and the legislation is protected from challenge by art. 31-A.

In the result the petition fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.