RAMANLAL GULABEHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-1968-4-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on April 19,1968

RAMANLAL GULABEHAND SHAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. COURT OF WARDS AJMER [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

IRABOT SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-1994-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
SATRADHIKAR BENGANA ATI SATRA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2000-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNING BODY OF RANGARAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE KAKINADA AND VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1977-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAO Alias BHIMARAO DESAI VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1969-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
MONORANJAN ROUTH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1972-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
HARIPADA MAZUMDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNA MULLICK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1974-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRA NATH NANDI IN F A 391 VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRA NATH NANDI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
PILANI INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1979-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
SYED FATEYAB ALI MEERZA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1990-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WODEYAR MYSORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1997-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAOJI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1984-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
PILANI INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. S B KAMBLE [LAWS(SC)-1975-3-27] [EXPLAINED AND FOLLOWED]
VORA MUNIRABEN GULAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
V N NARAYANAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1970-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
POCHANNA S O PATANNA CHIPPAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1993-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN SINGH VS. ARJAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1971-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
PARTAP SINGH KADIAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1975-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESHWAR VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1970-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, BOMBAY VS. JANABAI DEORAO KHATKE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-1987-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
PATAP SINGH VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1975-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
S. DORAISWAMI AND ORS. VS. THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1972-12-58] [REFERRED]
R.MOHANKUMAR VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-191] [REFERRED TO]
GULABBHAI VALLABHBHAI DESAI VS. H A KHAN, COLLECTOR OF DAMAN [LAWS(BOM)-1969-10-19] [REFERRED]
ACHALA PROVA NANDI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-4-31] [REFERRED]
ACHALA PROVA NANDI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF W.B. AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1975-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
T.G. MOHAN DAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-4-413] [REFERRED TO]
PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI VS. A. MAYILERUMPERUMAL [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-99] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals come before us on a reference by the Constitution Bench referring the question-whether the amendment of sec. 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by sec. 35(1) of the Bombay Act XIII of 1956, which added the words:
"or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond bis control."

has the protection of Arts. 31A and 31B of the Constitution. At the bearing of this reference before this special Bench (which included Judges of the Original Constitution Bench) it was decided to enlarge the reference to include the whole appeals so that they might be decided in their entirety at the same sitting.

(2.)These are appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat, 4/5 May, 1966 from many petitions questioning the declaration made by the Deputy Collector, Bulsar under sec. 65 of the Act. Below is given the text of the section with the amended portion material to these appeals underlined. As a result of the declaration the appellants stand to lose possession of their lands. The facts on which the several declarations have come to be made may now be stated.
(3.)The appellants own and possess lands in the district of Bulsar and claim to carry on agricultural operation by raising and cutting grass used as fodder. They were served with notices under sec. 65 of the Act. A sample notice is Annexure 'B' to the petition of Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah in the High Court. It was issued from the office of the Deputy Collector on February 5, 1966 addressed to Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah, It read as follows :-
This is to inform you that during the inquiry made by us it has been found that you are holding the following grass land together with the others: -

On making inquiry it has been found that on account of your fault (not) beyond your control you have allowed to grow the grass naturally in, the aforesaid land of your possession continuously for two years namely 1963-64 and 1964-65, and in two years prior to that kept the said land uncultivated. That you have not made full and efficient use of the said land for the purpose of agriculture.

Therefore, I, Shri M. B. Shaikh, Dist. Deputy Collector, Bulsar, in view of the authority vested in me under sec. 65 of the Tenancy Act. have to inform you and call upon you to show cause as to why the management of the aforesaid land; or a portion thereof should not be assumed by the Government under sec. 65 of the Tenancy Act.

"65. Assumption of management of lands which remained uncultivated.

(1) If it appears to the State Government that for any two consecutive yean, any land has remained uncultivated of the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his control the State Government may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, declare that the management of such land shall be assumed. The declaration so made shall be conclusive.

(2) On' the assumption of the management, such land shall vest in the State Government during the continuance of the management and the provisions of Chapter IV shall mutatis mutandis apply to the said land:

Provided that the manager may in suitable cases give such land on lease at rent even equal to the amount of its assessment.

Provided further that, if the management of the land has been assumed under sub-sec. (1) on account of the default of the tenant, such tenant, shall cease to have any right of privilege under Chapter II or IK, as the case may be, in respect of such land, with effect from the date on and from which such management has been assumed. "



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