Supreme Court of India
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHERversusMANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI JADEJA
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 564
- Decided
- 4 December 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
Bid land is agricultural land within the meaning of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, and the 1960 Act continues to apply to such lands despite the existence of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Summary
The State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar sought to enforce the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 against Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja, whose 587 acres of land were declared surplus. Jadeja contended that the lands were "urban land" under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and therefore outside the 1960 Act's ambit. The High Court initially allowed Jadeja's claim, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, prompting the State to file a Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definitions of "agriculture", "agriculturist", "land" and "bid land" in the 1960 Act, the 1974 amendment, and earlier Saurashtra statutes, concluding that bid land is agricultural land and falls within the 1960 Act. It held that the 1976 Act excludes only lands mainly used for agriculture and does not override the 1960 Act for such lands. The Court also rejected the applicability of res judicata and the notion that the 1976 Act eclipsed the 1960 Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgments and restored the orders of the revenue authorities.
Issues considered
- Whether "bid land" falls within the definition of "land" and "agriculture" under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960.
- Whether the definition of "bid land" in the earlier Saurashtra statutes can be imported to interpret the 1960 Act.
- The implication of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the applicability of the 1960 Act to bid lands.
- Whether the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1974, effective from 01.04.1976, affects the operation of the 1960 Act.
- The relevance of the ratio decidendi in Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar v. State of Gujarat to the present facts.
- The applicability of the principle of res judicata to the orders impugned before the High Court.
- The effect of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the 1960 Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 11
- Constitution of Indias. Article 252, s. Article 366
- Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960s. 2(1), s. 2(11), s. 2(12), s. 2(17), s. 2(3), s. 6
- Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1974s. 2(17) (amended), s. 2(1) (amended), s. 2(27A)
- Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 (Act 26 of 1951)s. 2(ii)
- Saurashtra Estates Acquisition Act, 1952 (Act 3 of 1952)s. 2(a), s. 4, s. 5
- Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 25 of 1951)s. 2(15), s. 2(18), s. 2(6)
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 2(a), s. 2(n), s. 2(o), s. 2(q), s. 6
Subjects
bid landagricultural land ceilingurban land ceilingdefinition of agricultureres judicataamendment actArticle 252land reform
Judgment
(2012] 11 S.C.R. 507
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER A
v.
MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI JADEJA
(Civil Appeal No. 612 of 2002)
DECEMBER 4, 2012
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960:
c
ss.2(1), 2(3), 2(11), 2(12) and 2(17) read with s.2(6) of
Gujarat Act 25of1951, s.2(11) of Gujarat Act 26of1951 and
s.2(a) of Gujarat Act 3 of 1952- 'Bid land' - Nature of- Held:
From the definition of 'agriculture' u/s 2(1 ), the definition of
'agriculturist' u/s. 2(3) along with the expression 'a person who 0
cultivates land personally' u/s 2(12) and the definition of 'land'
uls. 2(17) of the unamended Act of 1960, it is evident that the
legislature intended and did include 'lands' held by
'agriculturist' where grass is raised or used for grazing
purposes as part of agricultural land which was in possession E
of agriculturist - Such lands where grass is grown or used for
grazing purpose are always known as 'bid land' and would be
subject to the restrictions imposed for the purpose of
ascertaining the ceiling limit, unaffected by the coming into
force of the 1976 Act as well as the Amendment Act of 1974
and, therefore, determination of holding of such excess F
agricultural land under the Act of 1960 prior to the coming into
force of the Act, 1976 should be operated upon - Saurashtra
Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 25 of 1951), Saurashtra
Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 (Act 26 of 1951) - Saurashtra
Estates Acquisition Act, 1952(Act 3 of 1952) - Gujarat G
Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment Act}, 1972 (Act 2 of
1974) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
507 H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A s.2(o) - "Urband land" - Held: Would mean any land
situated within the urban agglomeration referred to as such
in the Master Plan and would exclude any such land which is
mainly used for the purpose of 'agriculture' - The situation has
now come where the position has to be made loud and clear
B to state that the 1976 Act would govern only such of those
lands which would fall within its area of operation within urban
agglomeration to the specific exclusion of the agricultural
lands and consequently the continued application of the un-
amended Act of 1960 would remain without any restriction.
c In the proceedings under the provisions of the
Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, (the 1960
Act), 587 acres, 35 gunthas of lands belonging to the
respondent were declared as surplus. Ultimately, his writ
petition was allowed by the single Judge of the High
D Court holding that his lands were covered by the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the 1976 Act)
and not by the 1960 Act. The Letters Patent Appeal filed
by the State Government was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court.
E
In the instant appeal filed by the State Government,
the case of the appellants-authorities was that the
respondent's lands being 'bid lands' were agricultural
lands and thereby governed by the provisions of Act of
F 1960. The stand of the respondent was that the lands
were never classified as "agricultural lands"; that they
were indisputably "urban lands" governed by the
provisions of the 1976 Act and, consequently, the
application of the Act of 1960 stood excluded.
G The questions for consideration before the Court
were:
(i) Whether 'Bid land' would fall within the definition
, 'land' read along with the definition of 'agriculture' as
H ·defined u/ss 2(17) and 2(1) of the Act of 1960?;
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI. 509
JADEJA
(ii) In order to ascertain the nature of description of A
'bid land' can the definition of the said expression
under the earlier statutes viz. Act No.XXV of 1951, Act
No.XXVI of 1951 and Act No.Ill of 1952 can be
imported?
B
(iii) What is the implication of the Urban Land Ceiling
Act, 1976 vis-a-vis the Act of 1960 in respect of 'bid
land'?·
'
(iv) Whether the Amendment Act of 1974 which came
into effect from 01.04.1976 and the definition of 'Bid C
land' under the said Amendment Act of 1974 can be
applied for the purpose of deciding the issue
involved in this litigation?;
(v) Whether the ratio decidendi of this Court in o
Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar can be applied to the facts
of this case?;
(vi) Whether the orders of the authorities under the
Act of 1960 impugned before the High Court were hit
by the principles of res judicata?; and E
(vii) What is the effect of the repealing of the Urban
Land Ceiling Act over the Act of 1960?"
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1. A careful consideration of the provisions
of ss. 2(17), 2(1), 2(3), 2(11) and 2(12) of the Gujarat
Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, which respectively
define the expressions 'land', 'agriculture', 'agriculturist',
'to cultivate' and 'to cultivate personally', gives a clear G
idea that the lands which are used as well as which are
capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture
including lands used for raising grass or either full or part
of it used for grazing purposes, would come within the
ambit of the Act and would be subject to the restrictions H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A imposed for the purpose of ascertaining the ceiling limit.
In view of the explanation part of sub s.(1) of s. 2 which
contains as many as Clauses (i) to (vi) the lands used for
grazing purposes as well as cutting of grass for rearing
of cattle are not the lands to be excluded from the
B definition of 'agriculture'. The definition of 'land' u/s. 2(17)
categorically mentions that the land which is either used
or capable of being used for agricultural purposes would
fall within the said definition. Therefore, reading the above
definitions together, a 'land' where grass is grown or
c used for grazing purposes, would fall within the inclusive
provision of the definition of 'agriculture'. The definition
of 'bid land' in Act Nos. XXV of 1951, XXVI of 1951 and
Act No. Ill of 1952 make the pos.ition clear that the 'bid
land' is nothing but the land used for grazing of cattle and
for raising grass for the purpose of rearing of cattle. [Para
0
29-30 and 35] [543-C-E-F; 543-G-H; 544-A, 547-D-G]
1.2. Under the amended Act of 1960, the definition of
agriculture u/s. 2(1) as it existed prior to the said
amendment was maintained. In addition, some of those
E excluded categories, namely, the one mentioned in sub
clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) were also included as falling
within the definition of the expression 'agriculture'.
Further the nature of exclusion as mentioned in sub-
clause (vi) of sub-s.(1)" of-s.2, namely, such other pursuits
F as may be described was also mentioned by stating that
such of those pursuits which have been prescribed prior
to the specified date would continue to stand excluded
for that period which was prior in point of time to the
specified date as mentioned in the Amendment Act which
G was notified on 01.04.1976. [Para 36] [547-G-H; 548-A-B]
1.3. It is relevant to mention the date which was
specified under the Amendment Act which as per s.2
(27 A) meant the date of the coming into force of the
H amended Act of 1974, namely, 01.04.1976. Therefore, the
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 511
JADEJA
conclusion to be drawn would be that as from 01.04.1976 A
the definition of 'agriculture' under the amended Act was
wider in scope which included land used whether or not
as an appendage to rice or paddy land for the purpose
of rabmanure, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding of
livestock and the cutting of woods and such of those B
lands which were in the excluded category under the
unamended Act cease to have effect of such exclusion
on and after 01.04.1976. [Para 36] [548-C-D]
1.4. The expression 'agriculture' u/s 2(1) of the 1960 C
Act, when examined uninfluenced by the Amendment Act
of 1974, specifically defines 'agriculture' to include the
land used for raising of grass, crops or garden produce
and the use by an agriculturist of the land held by him or
part thereof for grazing. The apparent intention of the
legislature in including the land used for grazing or for D
raising grass as per the definition of 'agriculture' under
the 1960 Act is quite explicit, inasmuch as, the use of
cattle in farming operation was inseparable at the relevant
point of time. Therefore, when the Legislature thought it
fit to include the land for raising grass and used for E
grazing, as part of definition of 'agriculture'; there is no
need to seek succour from any other definition which
was sought to be introduced at any later point of time by
way of amendment under the Amendment Act of 1974.
[Para 46] [554-D-E, F-H] F
1.5. Inasmuch as the invocation of the Amendment
Act of 1974 cannot be made having regard to its
subsequent emergence, namely, 01.04.1976 i.e. after the
coming into force of Act, 1976 as from 17.02.1976, the G
position that prevailed under the unamended Act of 1960
has to be considered, in order to find out whether the
1960 Act is applicable in respect of the lands held by the
respondent for the purpose of its enforcement or
otherwise against the respondent. [Para 53] [558-D-E]
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A 1.6. The definition of 'agriculturist' u/s. 2(3) and the
expression "to cultivate" as defined u/s. 2(11 ), as well as,
the expression "to cultivate personally" as defined u/s.
2(12) of the Act, considered together, make the position
clear that even a person cultivating the lands by one's
B own labour or by any other member of one's family or
under the personal supervision of oneself or any member
of ones' family by hired labour or by servants on wages
payable in cash or kind would nonetheless fall within the
four corners of the expression "agriculturist". Therefore,
c the expression "agriculturist" used in the definition
clause u/s 2(3) or "agriculture" u/s. 2(1) is wide enough
to include the respondent who though was once a 'Ruler'
and was not tilling the land by himself would still fall
within the definition of 'agriculturist' when such
agricultural operation, namely, cultivation of land is
0
carried out with the support of any one of his family
members by supervising such operation or by engaging
any labour to carry out such cultivation. [Para 54] [558-
F-H; 559-A-C]
E 1.7. This Court is, therefore, of the firm view that 'bid
land', the nomenclature of which was categorically
admitted by the respondent and having regard to its
nature and purpose for which it was put to use would
squarely fall within the definition of 'agriculture' as
F defined u/s. 2(1) of the Act of 1960 as it originally stood
unaffected by the coming into force of the Act of 1976 as
well as the Amendment Act of 1974. In the result, its
application to those 'bid lands' held by the respondent
cannot be thwarted. [Para 54] [559-D-E]
G
2.1. The definition of 'bid land' u/s. 2 (6) of the
Saurashtra Act No. XXV of 1951 clearly stated that it
would refer to the lands used for grazing of cattle and for
cutting grass for the use of cattle. The said definition was
consistently maintained in the Saurashtra Act No.XXVI of
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 513
JADEJA
1951 [s.2(ii)], as well as, Saurashtra Act No.Ill of 1952 A
[s.2(a)]. [Para 46] [554-C-D]
2.2. 'Bid land' was one type of land held by Girasdars
and Barkhalidars by way of grant and it was in that
context the character of 'bid land' was defined for the B
purpose of ascertaining the total extent of land held by
each of the Girasdar and Barkhalidar. The
extinguishment of the rights of Girasdars and
Barkhalidars as well as the Rulers does not mean that the
definition assigned to 'bid land' should be restricted in C
respect of those specific persons alone and cannot be
applied in general for any other purpose. [Para 49 and 52]
[556-C-D; 557-D-E]
2.3. The definition of 'bid land' has to be considered
de hors the ownership or in whose possession such D
land remains or vests on any particular date. The
character of 'bid land' cannot vary simply because it is
in the hands of Girasdars and Barkhalidars or with any
other person including a former Ruler. Though
Saurashtra Acts Nos. Ill of 1952, XXV of 1951 and XXVI E
of 1951 pertain to the estates held by Girasdars and
Barkhalidars as well as the Rulers of the erstwhile
Saurashtra State, the definition of 'bid land' contained in
those legislations could however be taken into account
for the purpose of understanding the meaning of 'bid F
land'. Once the 'bid land' can be defined to mean such
land used for grazing of cattle or for cutting grass for the
use of cattle irrespective of the nature of possession of
such lands with whomsoever it may be, a 'bid land' would
be a 'bid land' for all practical purposes. There is nothing G
to show that a 'bid land' is capable of being defined
differently or that it was being used for different purpose
by different persons. [Para 48 and 52] (555-E-F; 557-G-H;
558-B-C]
3.1. By virtue of $. 1(2) of the Urband Land Ceiling H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A Act, 1976, the Act was applied to the whole of the State
of Gujarat. Under s. 2(a), the appointed day was defined
to mean in relation to any State to which the Act applied
in the first instance, the date of its introduction in
Parliament, which was admittedly 17.02.1976. Under s.
B 2(n) what is an 'urban agglomeration' has been defined
and it is not in dispute that district Rajkot where the lands
in question situate falls within the definition of urban
agglomeration mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act. Under
s. 2(o) of the 1976 Act, 'urban land' has been defined to
c mean any land situated within the limits of an urban
agglomeration referred to as such in the Master Plan.
However, it does not include any such 'land' which is
mainly used for the purpose of 'agriculture'. Under s. 2(q)
'vacant land' has been defined to mean land not being
0 mainly used for the purpose of agriculture in an urban
agglomeration subject to other exclusions contained in
the said sub-clause (q). [Para 39] [549-H; 550-A-C] ·
3.2. The definition of 'urban land' again makes the
position clear that any land situated within the urban
E agglomeration referred to as such in the Master Plan
would exclude any such land which is mainly used for
the purpose of 'agriculture'. Under Explanation (A) to s.
2(o) such of those lands which are used for 'raising of
grass' stood excluded from the use of 'agriculture'. It is
F worthwhile to note that the 'land used for grazing' has
however not been specifically excluded from the
definition of 'agriculture' in Explanation (A). The
conspectus consideration of the provisions leads to the
conclusion that the apparent purport and intent, therefore,
G was to exclude lands used for agriculture from the
purview of 1976 Act, which would enable the holders of
lands of such character used for agriculture to be
benefited by protecting their holdings even if such lands
are within the urban agglomeration limits and thereby
H depriving the competent authority from seeking to acquire
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 515
JADEJA
those lands as excess lands in the hands of the holder A
of such lands. [Para 44] [552-G-H; 553-A-C]
3.3. The conspectus consideration of the various
provisions of the 1976 Act considered in the light of the
object and purport of the 1960 Act which was intended for
8
equal distribution of agricultural lands to the landless poor
agriculturists, the application of the said Act will have to
be independently made and can be so applied as it stood
prior to the coming into force of the 1976 Act as from
17.02.1976. At this juncture it will have to be noted and C
stated that the subject, namely, the 'land' being an item
falling under Entry 18 of List II of Schedule VII to the
Constitution, by virtue of the so-called surrender of power
of legislation in respect of the said entry namely 'land' by
way of Central Legislation, namely, the 1976 Act to be
enacted by Parliament pursuant to a State resolution by D
invoking Art.252 (1) of the Constitution, any subsequent
legislation by way of Amendment or otherwise with regard
to the said Entry, namely, 'land' will be directly hit by the
specific embargo contained in Art.252 (2) of the
Constitution. [Para 45] [553-F-H; 554-A-B] E
3.4. As regards the Amendment Act, 1974, the date
of passing of the Act was irrelevant and what was
relevant was the date when the Act was notified, namely,
01.04.1976. Thus, the amendment came into effect only F
from 01.04.1976 i.e. after the coming into force of the 1976
Act, namely, 17.02.1976. [Para 42] [552-C-D]
3.5. There is no conflict in the stand of the appellant
while dealing with the nature .of land held by the
respondent which was earlier dealt with under the 1960 G
Act which came to be considered by the authorities under
the 1976 Act, pursuant to the return submitted by the
respondent on 13.08.1976 u/s. 6(1) of the 1976 Act. Even
according to the respondent, the subject land having
been classified as 'agricultural land' stood excluded from H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 11 S.C.R.
A the application of the provisions of the 1976 Act though
lying within the urban agglomeration area. It was,
therefore, axiomatic that de hors the implication of the
provision of the 1976 Act by virtue of the character of the
land held by the respondent, the application of the Act
B of 1960, as it originally stood prior to 17.2.1976 was
imperative. Such a legal consequence existed. Even
accepting that being agricultural land lying within the
urban agglomeration, the application of the 1976 Act
stood excluded, there would not be any scope at all for
C the respondent to claim on that score that the application
of the Act of 1960 should also be excluded. Therefore,
taking note of the categorical stand of the respondent
himself, having claimed exclusion of such of those lands
which were classified as 'agricultural land', which
D included 'bid land' as well from the application of the
provisions of the 1976 Act, the authorities competent
under the provisions of such other enactments which
would govern such agricultural lands would be free to
exercise their powers under these enactments. It can
never be said that there would be a vacuum in so far as
E the application of any statute over the lands held by the
respondent that have been classified as 'agricultural
land'. [Para 69, 70) [569-C-D, F-H; 570-A-D]
3.6. Therefore, the legal position that would emerge
F would be that going by the stand of the respondent, his
lands to an extent of 579 acres, 27 Gunthas being
'agricultural land' if stood excluded from the application
of the provisions of the 1976 Act, such lands were
already governed by the provisions of the Act of 1960 as
G it originally stood and applied and there can be no demur
to it. [Para 70) [570-D·E]
3.7. The Act of 1960 in its un-amended form applied
on its own and continued to hold the field and was in
operation over the 'agricultural lands' over which the
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 51 7
JADEJA
implication of the 1976 Act had no effect. The said legal A
position has to be necessarily understood in the said
manner and cannot be stated in any other manner. [Para
71] [571-D-E]
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary
8
& ors. 1979 (3) SCR 802 = (1979) 3 sec 324 - held
inapplicable
State of Bihar Vs. Sir Kamesh.var Singh 1952
SCR 1056 =AIR 1952 SC 252 - referred to
c
3.8. This Court holds that the situation has now come
where the position has to be made loud and clear to state
that the 1976 Act would govern only such of those lands
which would fall within its area of operation within urban
agglomeration to the specific exclusion of the agricultural o
lands and consequently the continued application of the
un-c:mended Act of 1960 would remain without any
restriction. In Thumati Venkaiah's case this Court made
it clear that Pc::~liament enacted the Central Act with a view
to impose ceiling on vacant land other than the land E
mainly used for the purpose of agriculture in an urban
agglomeration. [Para 74 and 76] [574-C-D; 577-E-F]
Thumati Venkaiah and Others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Others 1980 (3) SCR 1143 = (1980) 4 sec 295
- relied on F
3.9. In the instant case, since as per the un-amended
Act of 1960, 'bid land' held by the respondent fell within
the definition of 'agriculture' u/s 2(1) and consequent
definition of 'land' in s. 2(17) thereof, the determination of G
holding of such excess agricultural land under the said
Act of 1960 prior to the coming into force of the Act, 1976
should be operated upon. [Para 78] ·[580-B-C]
4. The Amendment Act of 1974, which was notified
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 11 S.C.R.
A as from 01.04.1976, does not in any way affect the
application of 1960 Act as it originally stood. From the
definition of 'agriculture' u/s. 2(1), the definition of
'agriculturist' u/s. 2(3) along with the expressions 'a
person who cultivates land personally' and the definition
B of 'land' u/s. 2(17) of the unamended Act of 1960, it is
evident that the legislature intended and did include
'lands' held by 'agriculturist' where grass is raised or
used for grazing purposes as part of agricultural land
which was in the possession of agriculturist. Such lands
c where grass is grown or used for grazing purpose are
always known as 'bid land'. Such 'bid land' was
ultimately brought within the definition of 'land' u/s. 2(17)
of the Act of 1960. Therefore, even by keeping aside the
implication of the wider definition which was introduced
0 by the Amendment Act of 1974 in regard to 'bid lands' and
going by the definition of 'agriculture' and 'land' u/ss. 2(1)
and 2(17) of the Act of 1960, there is no difficulty in
coming to a definite conclusion that such definition
contained in the Act as it originally stood did include 'bid
E lands' which lands were exclusively meant for cutting
grass for cattle or used for grazing purposes. Therefore,
there was no necessity for this Court to draw any further
assistance either from the Objects and Reasons or from
the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1974 in order to
hold that 'bid lands' were part of agricultural land
F governed by the provisions of the Act of 1960. [Para 55
and 59] [559-F; 561-E-H; 562-A-B]
Pathumma & Others Vs. State of Kera/a & Ors. 1978 (2)
SCR 537 =(1978) 2 SCC 1 - referred to
G
5. The decision in Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar is clear
to the pointer that irrespective of the definition of 'bid
land' under the Amendment Act 1974, having regard to
the definition of 'bid land' under Act Ill of 1952, such land
H would fall within the expression of 'agricultural land' as
STATE OF GUJAP.AT-v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUllAANSINHJI 519
JADEJA
defined in s. 2(1) of the Act of 1960. The decision in A
Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar is for the simple proposition as
to how a land where grass is raised or used for grazing
purposes is to be included under the definition of
'agriculture' and consequently within the definition of
'land' as provided u/ss. 2(1) and 2(17) of the Act of 1960. B
Therefore, non-consideration of the implication of Act,
1976 in the said decision does not make any difference.
[Paras 63 and 66] [564-D-E; 566-G-H; 567-A]
Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar Vs. State of Gujarat 2010 (11) C
SCR 414 =(2010) 10 sec 594 - relied on.
London Jewellers Umited Vs. Attenborough (1934) 2 K.B.
206; Jacobs Vs. London County Council (1950) 1 All E.R.
737; Behrens and another Vs. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd.
(1957) 1 All E.R. 583 - referred to. D
6. The principle of res judicata is governed by s. 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Applying the
ingredients set out in the said provision, the respondent
is bound to show that the issue which was directly and E
substantially involved between the same parties in the
former suit was tried in the subsequent suit, in order to
fall within the principles of res judicata. Applying the
substantive part of s. 11 of C.P.C. it cannot be said that
any of the ingredients set out therein are fulfilled in order F
to apply the principle of res judicata. The parties in the
Special Civil Application No. 941 of 1980 and SCA No.
15529of1999 are entirely different, the fact in issue would
disclose that the said cases were based on entirely
different set of facts and circumstances. [Para 82] [582-
F-H; 583-A] G
Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of
=
Gujarat and Others - 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 552 (2004) 12
sec 645- referred to
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A 7. As regards the concept of eclipse in relation to the
Act of 1960, as it originally stood as well as after the
Amendment Act of 1974 by virtue of the coming into force
of the 1976 Act w.e.f. 17.02.1976 and subsequent repeal
of the 1976 Act in the year 2000, suffice it to say that once
8 the 1976 Act came to be repealed, whatever constitutional
embargo that was existing as against the Act of 1960 as
well as the Amendment Act of 1974 ceased to exist and
the Act would operate in full force. [Para 83) [583-B-C;
584-D-E]
C M.P. V. Sundararamier & Co. vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh & Another 1958 SCR 1422 - referred to
8. Therefore, this Court holds that the orders of the
appellants impugned before the High Court were fully
0 justified. The order of the Single Judge as well as the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench are set aside.
The judgment dated 08.09.1989 passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.R.4/
84 confirming the orders of the Deputy Collector and
E Mamlatdar and A.L.T in so far as bid lands in survey
No.111/2 admeasuring 30 acres, 30 Gunthas and survey
No.111/3 admeasuring 579 acres, 27 Gunthas stands
restored. [Para 78 and 84) [580-C; 584-F-C]
Case Law Reference:
F
1978 (2) SCR 537 referred to Para 58
2010 (11) SCR 414 relied on Para 60
(1934) 2 K.B. 206 referred to Para 63
G (1950) 1 All E.R. 737 referred to Para 63
(1957) 1 All E.R. 583 referred to Para 63
(201 o) 1o sec 594 referred to Para 65
H 1979 (3) SCR 802 held inapplicable Para 72
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 521
JADEJA
1952 SCR 1056 referred to Para 72 A
1980 (3) SCR 1143 relied on Para 75
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR552 referred to Para 80
1958 SCR 1422 referred to Para 83 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 612
of 2002.
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.10.2000 and
20.10.2000 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat c
at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 579 of 2000 in
Special Civil Application No. 4015 of 1990.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Preetesh Kapoor, Hemantika Wahi,
Jesal and Mehernaz Mehta for the Appellants.
D
Shekhar Naphade, Huzefa A. Ahmedi, Anip Sacthey, Mohit
Paul, Shagun Matta, Shubhangi Tuli for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. The E
State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar & Agriculture are the
appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the
Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated
11.10.2000 and the final order of the Division Bench dated
20.10.2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.597/2000 in F
Special Civil Application No.4015 of 1990. By the said
impugned judgment and the final order, the Letters Patent
Appeal preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed
confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed
in Special Civil Application No.4015of1990 dated 06.05.1999. G
2. The second appellant herein initiated proceedings under
the provisions of The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act,
1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1960') and after hearing
the interested party, passed an order dated 24.08.1982 in H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Ceiling Case No.2 of 1976 holding that the land to an extent of
587 acres 35 Gunthas was in excess of ceiling limit and the
respondent was entitled to retain only balance land i.e. 51 acres.
3. The respondent preferred an appeal under Section 35
8 of the 1960 Act to the Deputy Collector, Rajkot. The Deputy
Collector dismissed the appeal by an order dated 10.11.1983.
The respondent preferred a revision under Section 38 of the
Act of 1960 which was registered as TEN.B.R.4/84 before the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its
C judgment dated 08.09.1989 partly allowed the revision and
directed that Randarda lands admeasuring 40 acres to be
included in the total holding, that Bhomeshwar Temple
admeasuring 12 acres 34 Gunthas to be excluded from the
holding of the respondent and remanded the matter back to the
second appellant for taking evidence regarding the age of the
D members of the family.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,
the respondent preferred the writ petition in Special Civil
Application No.401 a 5 of 1990. Before the learned Single
E Judge, the respondent took the stand that his lands were
covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(hereinafter called the 'Act, 1976') and was not governed by the
Act of 1960. In fact, the said stand of the respondent was raised
for the first time in the writ petition. The stand of the respondent
F was accepted by the learned Single Judge and by the judgment
and order dated 06.05.1999 passed in Special Civil Application
No.4015 of 1990, the judgment and order of the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal dated 08.09.1989 in Revision Application
No.TEN.B.R.4/84 was set aside and the Rule was made
G absolute.
5. The appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.597/
2000 and by the order impugned in this civil appeal, the said
LPA having been dismissed, the appellants have come forward
with this appeal.
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 523
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
6. We heard Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel A
for the appellants and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
counsel for the respondent. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior
counsel for the appellants in the first instance traced the
existence of the Act of 1960 as it originally stood which was
enforced on 15.06.1961 and, thereafter, the initiative taken by B
the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly by passing a resolution
on 14.08.1972 under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution of India
authorizing the Parliament to legislate with respect to
'imposition of ceiling on the holding of urban immovable
property'. Learned senior counsel also referred to the c
amendment passed by the State Legislature to the definition
of 'land' in the Act of 1960 by way of 'removal of doubts' to the
expression 'Bid lands' also to be included in the definition of
'land' on 23.02.1974 which amendment was notified on
01.04.1976 under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling
0
(Amendment) Act, 1972. Learned senior counsel also brought
to our notice the coming into force of the Act, 1976 on and from
17.02.1976.
7. While elaborating his submissions on the various
provisions contained in the different enactments, in the E
foremost, the learned senior counsel referred to the expressions
'agriculture' under Section 2(1) and 'land' under Section 2(17)
of the un-amended, Act of 1960. Learned counsel also referred
to Section 6 which sought to fix the ceiling on holding of such
agricultural land. In that context, learned senior counsel brought F
to our notice the Statement of Objects and Reasons for bringing
out the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act,
1972 (being Gujarat Act No.2 of 1974) (hereinafter called the
Amendment Act, 1974) wherein, inter alia, it sought to remove
doubts relating to 'Bid lands' of former Princes, as well as, G
Girasdars and Barkhalidars in the Saurashtra area which were
duly covered under the definition of 'land' and submitted that it
was only with a view to remove doubts that the Amendment Act
was brought out and that it was not by virtue of the said
amendment alone 'Bid lands' fell within the definition of 'land'. H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A 8. In other words, according to learned senior counsel,
even as per the definition of 'land' under Section 2(17) read
along with the definition of "agriculture" under Section 2(1) of
the un-amended Act of 1960, 'Bid lands' were duly covered
within the said expression of 'land' and the Amendment Act,
B 1974 only sought to remove any doubt in the mind of anyone
as regards the character of the 'Bid lands'.
9. The learned senior counsel then referred to Section 2(q),
namely, the definition of 'vacant land' and Section 2(o), the
definition of 'urban land' under the provisions of the Act, 1976
C to contend that even going by the said definitions, such land
within the urban agglomeration which fall within the definition
of 'agricultural land' stood excluded for the purpose of
application of the Act, 1976.
D 10. Learned senior counsel also brought to our notice the
definition of 'Bid land' under Section 2(a) of the Saurashtra
Estates Acquisition Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as the
"Saurashtra Act No. Ill of 1952") as well as the definition of the
very same expression, namely, 'Bid land' under the Saurashtra
E Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as the "Saurashtra
Act No.XXV of 1951) as well as Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition
Act (hereinafter called as the "Saurashtra Act No.XXVI of 1951)
and contended that even long prior to the Amendment Act 1974
'Bid land' has been defined to mean a land used by Girasdars
F or Barkhalidars for grazing cattle or for cutting grass, for the
use of cattle, meaning thereby that such lands were nonetheless
'agricultural lands'. In the light of the above statutory provisions
relating to the 'Bid land' learned counsel submitted that de hors
the Amendment Act 1974 which came to be notified on
G 01.04.1976 'Bid land' fell within the definition of 'land' under the
Act of 1960 and consequently there was no scope for the
respondent to fall back upon the Act, 1976 in order to challenge
the order passed by the second appellant which ultimately came
to be confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which was set
aside by the judgment of the Division Bench in the order
H impugned in this appeal.
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 525
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALJFULLA, J.]
11 . The learned senior counsel further contended that this A
very issue was considered by this Court in a recent decision
in Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(2010) 10 sec 594 which has taken the view that the definition
of 'land' under Section 2(17) read along with Section 2(1) of
the Act of 1960 'Bid land' would fall within the definition of B
'agriculture' and consequently governed by the definition
· Section 2(17) which define the expression 'land' and, therefore,
the ceiling limit prescribed under Section 6 of Act of 1960
would be applicable to the 'Bid lands' of the respondent. The
learned senior counsel also relied upon the decision of the c
Privy Council in London Jewellers Limited Vs. Attenborough -
(1934) 2 K.B. 206; the House of Lords decision in Jacobs Vs.
London County Council - (1950) 1 All E.R. 737; and the Queens
Bench decision in Behrens and another Vs. Bertram Mills
Circus Ltd. - (1957) 1 All E.R. 583 for the proposition that
0
wherein a decision more than one reason is assigned to
support the ultimate conclusion, both the reasons will have
binding effect and that one cannot be excluded under any
pretext. The learned senior counsel also relied upon Smt.
Somawanti and others Vs. State of Punjab and others - AIR
1963 SC 151 wherein it was held that the binding effect of a E
decision does not depend upon whether a particular argument
was considered therein or not, provided that the point with
reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced
was actually decided. The learned senior counsel, therefore,
contended that in the recent judgment of this Court in Nagbhai F
Najbhai Khackar (supra) when the ultimate decision was
reached based on two grounds, both the grounds, would be the
ratio of the decision and, therefore, the said decision will be
complete answer to the question involved in this appeal.
G
12. In the alternate learned senior counsel submitted that
the argument of the respondent which weighed with the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court
in the impugned judgment based on the Act, 1976 vis-a-vis the
Act of 1960 read along with Amendment Act 1974 was not H
~ 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
.. ustainable. According to learned senior counsel, in the first
'ace, there could not be any repugnancy as between the Act
..if 1960 and the Act, 1976, inasmuch as the amendment of the
~efinition of 'land' in the Act of 1960 was amended as early as
1n 23.02.1974, namely, long prior to the coming into force of
.he Act, 1976. According to learned senior counsel the relevant
late is the date when the Amendment Act came to be passed
.n the Assembly on 23.02.1974 and the subsequent notification
'1ated 01.04.1976 bringing into effect the Amendment Act 1974
1as not the relevant date. In other words, according to him,
1hen once the amending legislation was passed in the
.ssembly in the year 1974 the subsequent notification though
.1as made in the year 1976 for bringing into force the
"mendments, the relevant date would be the date when the Act
:as passed and not the date when it was notified. The learned
. 1unsel then contended that in any case the resolution dated
··4.08.1972 was passed under Article 252(1) of the
( .onstitution relating to the legislation with respect to ceiling on
·urban immovable property' and it had nothing to do with the
'agricultural land'. The learned counsel, therefore, contended
.hat the conclusion of the learned Single Judge, as well as, that
of the Division Bench in having non-suited the appellants on the
1pecific ground that by virtue of the provisions of the Act, 1976
the appellants' action in proceeding against the respondent
Jnder the Act of 1960 was null and void was unsustainable in
l~w. Learned senior counsel contended that once the Act, 1976
.;toad repealed, as a corollary, the Act of 1960 with all the
Amendments carried to it would automatically get revived and
1t will not become· a dead letter as contended on behalf of the
respondent. Learned senior counsel referred to the decision of
this Court in M.P. V. Sundararamier & Co. Vs. The State of
• Andhra Pradesh & another-1958 SCR 1422 in support of the
said submission. Learned senior counsel also relied upon
Thumati Venkaiah and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and others - (1980) 4 SCC 295 for the said proposition. The
learned counsel, therefore, contended' that, in the light of the
· ' recent decision of this Court in Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUM.t\NSINHJI 52 7
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUUA, J.]
(supra), which squarely covers the case on hand, the order A
impugned is liable to be set aside.
13. As against the above submission, Mr. Naphade,
learned senior counsel prefaced his submission by contending
that the stand of the appellants that 'Bid lands' were agriculture B
lands under the Act was not correct. Learned senior counsel
pointed out that the appellant initiated proceedings against. the
respondent both under the Act of 1960, as well as, the Act,
1976 and that in fact they were also keen to proceed under the
Act, 1976. While referring to the submission of learned senior C
counsel for the appellant Mr. Naphade contended that the
argument based on Article 252 of the Constitution and its effect
was almost given up by the appellant. The learned senior
counsel after referring to the unamended Act of 1960 and the
definition of 'agriculture', 'agriculturist' and 'to cultivate personally'
and the definition qf 'agricultural land' and 'Bid Land' of Girasdar D
under the Saurashtra Act No.XXV of 1951 contended that the
various definitions under the Act of 1960 were more concerned
with the 'agriculturists' and their close proximity to the land held
by them, while under the Saurashtra Reforms Act the stress was
more on the lands held by the grantees as tenure holders in E
some form or the other. In that context, learned senior counsel
submitted that the definition between the 'Bid land' and the
'agriculture land' was clearly known to the Legislature as could
be seen from the definition so drawn in the provisions
contained under the Act of 1960, as well as, the Saurashtra F
Land Reforms Act. According to learned senior counsel, the
reference to the description of 'Bid lands' under Saurashtra Act
No.XXV of 1951 and the 'Act XXVI of 1951 disclose that the
Legislature was conscious of the fact that the Act of 1960 did
not include 'Bid lands' in the definition of 'land'. G
14. While referring to the amendment which was brought
out to the definition of 'land' in the Act of 1960, in particular
Sections 4, 5 and 10 of the Amendment Act by which
amendment was brought into Sections 2(1) and 2(17) and H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A introduction of Section 2(27A) in the principal Act the learned
counsel contended that the intention of the Legislature to bring
into effect certain consequences pursuant to the amendment
after the specified date, namely, 01.04.1976 was clearly spelt
out. According to learned counsel, it was not merely by way of
B removal of doubt that the Amendment Act of 1974 was brought
in but a significant purport was intended in bringing out such
amendments to take effect on and after 01.04.1976 which has
been specifically mentioned in Section 2 (27A) which came to
be introduced by Amendment Act of 1974.
c 15. The !earned senior counsel then contended that even
assuming that the Amendment Act of 1974 would apply to the
case on hand, since the respondent did not fall under the
definition of 'Ruler' as stipulated in Section 2(17)(ii)(d) of the
Amended Act, the Act of 1960 cannot be applied to the case
D of the respondent. Learned senior counsel by referring to Article
366 of the Constitution pointed out that under sub-clause 22 of
Article 366 a 'Ruler' has been defined to mean the Prince, Chief
or other person who at any time before the commencement of
the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971 was recognized
E by the President as the 'Ruler' of an Indian State or any person
who at any time before such commencement was recognized
by the President as the successor of such 'Ruler' and a person
thus fulfill the above criteria alone would come within the
definition of 'Ruler'. The learned senior counsel contended that
F the respondent was never recognized in accordance with such
constitutional provision and, therefore, the said Section
2(17)(ii)(d) of the Amended Act can have no application to the
case of the respondent. It was further contended that the
respondent would neither fall under the category of Girasdar or
G Barkhalidar or in the category of 'Ruler' and, therefore, even if
the Amended Act of 1974 is applied, the respondent stood
excluded from the coverage of the Act.
16. The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that
the argument that 'Bid lands' were already governed by the
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 529
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
definition of 'agriculture' (i.e.) long prior to the coming into force A
of the 1974 Act, namely, from 01.04.1976 cannot be accepted.
A fortiori, learned senior counsel contended that when the
statute is clear in its ambit and scope and there being no
ambiguity, there was no necessity to rely upon or refer to the
Objects and Reasons to understand the purport of the B
enactment and relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of
this Court reported in Pathumma & Others Vs. State of Kera/a
& Ors. reported in (1978) 2 SCC 1. The learned senior counsel,
therefore, contended that whatever argument now raised based
on the expression 'Bid lands' on behalf of the appellant may c
hold good only after 01.04.1976 and that the heavy reliance
placed upon Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar (supra) cannot also
come to the aid of the appellant since the various principles
set out in the said decision were solely based on the
Amendment Act, 1974 as has been specifically spelt out in 0
various paragraphs of the said decision. The learned senior
counsel pointed out that the said decision, does not, apply to
the facts of this case, inasmuch as, there was no reference to
the implication of the Act, 1976 which came into effect as early
as on 17.02.1976 vis-a-vis the Act of 1960 and the said Act E
being an Act of Parliament, the appellant was bound by the
provisions contained therein which would negate the entire
submission made on behalf of the appellant.
17. According to learned senior counsel when the
application of Act, 1976 was not the subject matter of F
consideration while deciding the scope of the amendment Act
of 1974 in the judgment reported in Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar
(supra), reliance placed upon the said decision on behalf of the
appellant is of no relevance.
G
18. The next submission of Mr. Naphade was that the Act,
1976 and the Act of 1960 were operating in their respective
fields, though relatable to holding of lands. Learned counsel
after making reference to Section 1(2), 2 (A), 2 (C), 2(N) and
the Schedule to the Act, 1976 pointed out that Rajkot where H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A the disputed land situate, fell within the urban agglomeration
area, that the land in question is admittedly a land referred to
in the Master Plan as has been stipulated under Section 2(o)
of the Act, 1976 and, therefore, there is a world of difference
for considering the land classified as 'agricultural land' under
B both the enactments. According to learned senior counsel,
having regard to the Explanations A, B & C of Section 2(q) of
the Act, 1976 a conscious departure has been made with
reference to the description of 'agricultural land' inasmuch as
under the said Act it must be shown that the land was being
c 'used' for agricultural purposes in contradistinction to the Act
of 1960 where a land simpliciter falling under the definition of
'agriculture' would alone be the relevant factor. Mr. Naphade in
his submissions contended that having regard to the
emergence of Act, 1976 on and from 17.02.1976 and by virtue
of the Constitutional mandate, the Act of 1960 ceased to have
0
any effect on any 'agricultural land' in the State of Gujarat. In
other words, according to learned senior counsel, since
admittedly the lands belonged to the respondent were lying
within the urban agglomeration specified under the Schedule
to the Act, 1976 the application of Act of 1960 ceased to have
E any effect on the said land and, therefore, the appellant had no
authority to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1960 for the
purpose of acquisition.
19. Learned senior counsel contended that the 1974
F Amendment to the Act of 1960 was a 'still born child' inasmuch
as it came into effect only from 01.04.1976 whereas the Act,
1976 was brought into force on 17 .02.1976 itself and was
holding the field. The learned counsel stressed the point that
the date of passing of the Act was not the relevant date and
G what was relevant was the date of implementation of the Act
which legal principle was well settled as per the decision
reported in In the matter of the Hindu Women's Rights to
Property Act, 1937 - AIR 1941 F.C. 72.
20. While meeting the argument of Shri Soli Sorabjee, the
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 531
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
contention of Mr. Naphade on Article 252 was that havir:·1
regard to the invocation of the said Article by the State o•
Gujarat, there was a virtual surrender of its power to legislatto
and thereby it was denuded of bringing out any legislation afresh
or by way of amendment on the subject governed by thi
legislation brought out pursuant to invocation of Article 252 c.. ·
the Constitution. In that context, learned senior counsel brought
to our notice Section 103 of the 1935 Act which was tr~
comparative provision to Article 252 of the Constitution ar
pointed out that under Section 103 of the 1935 Act while th1.
States could approach the Federal Government for bringing Oll'. ..
a legislation, having regard to the specific provisions containe
in the said Section, the power to deal with such legislation fc,
any future contingency was retained by the State Government,
while on the contrary the framers of our Constitution even afk
a specific point raised in the Constituent Assembl:,
proceedings for retention of such a power by the State
Government, Article 252 (2) ultimately came to be frame. ·
making it clear that once the power of the legislativ-.:
competence of the State was surrendered to the Parliament.
thereafter any future legislation on the subject could only be dea
with by the Parliament and the state was completely denudec
of such power. In support of the said submission, learnec;
senior counsel relied upon Mis R.M.D.C. (Mysore) Private Ltd
(supra) and State of U.P. Vs. Nand Kumar Aggarwal anr
others - (1997) 11 sec 754.
21. Learned senior counsel after referring to the orders'.'.
the Mamlatdar dated 24.08.1982, the Deputy Collector datr"
10.11.1983 and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 08.09.198'
as compared to the return filed by the respondent under Sectic
6 of the Act, 1976 dated 13.08.1976, the order of the compete r
authority dated 25.05.1983 and the order of the Tribunal und::r
the Act, 1976 dated 18.09.1991 contended that even accordirg
to the appellants themselves as stated in their reply affidavit 10
agricultural operation was carried out in survey No.111/2-3'1
and thereby virtually admitting the position that the lands ' ·
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A question can never be held to be 'agricultural lands'. The learned
counsel contended that the appellants were blowing hot and
cold, that for the purpose of coverage under the Act, 1976 they
wanted to contend that the lands were not agricultural land,
while when it came to the question of coverage under the Act
B of 1960, they contended that the very same lands as 'Bid lands'
would fall within the definition of 'agriculture'. The learned
counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment of the
High Court was well justified and does not call for interference.
22. Lastly, it was contended by the learned senior counsel
C for the respondent that the case of the appellant is also hit by
the principle of res judicata. The learned senior counsel by
referring to an order passed by the Deputy Collector,
Bhavnagar relating to Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' in his order dated
09.11.1979 specifically held that the Act of 1960 was not
D applicable to the said lands and that only' Act, 1976 would
apply. It was pointed out that when the issue went before the
High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.941 of
1980 a joint affidavit of two Deputy Collectors dated
06.10.1980 came to be filed with reference to Bhavnagar 'Bid
E lands' wherein ii was reiterated on behalf of the Government
that only Act, 1976 would apply to 'Bid land' in urban
agglomeration of Bhavnagar and that the Act of 1960 was not
applicable. Learned senior counsel also referred to an affidavit
dated 16.02.2000 filed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue
F Department, Government of Gujarat in relation to Bhavnagar
'Bid lands' before the High Court of Gujarat in Civil Application
No.15529/1999 in S.C.A. No, 10108/1994 wherein a clear
stand was taken by the State Government that possession of
Bhavnagar 'Bid land' not having been acquired and taken under
G the Act, 1976 when the Act was in force, after its repeal, there
was no scope to take possession of those lands.
23. The learned senior counsel also referred to the
decision of this Court in Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and
another Vs. State of Gujarat and others - (2004) 12 SCC 645
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 533
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
and contended that in a contempt petition filed at the instance A
of a purchaser of Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' this Court after tracing
the history of the earlier litigation wherein it was concluded that
Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' were controlled by the provisions of the
Act, 1976 and not by the Act of 1960 and conse.quently the
matter having been finally decided by the Courts anil reached B
its finality the authorities cannot reopen the same. The learned
senior counsel, therefore, contended that since the decision on
the applicability of the Act of 1960 vis-a-vis the Act. 1976 in
relation to 'Bid lands' of the 'Ruler' of erstwhile Bhavnagar State
having been examined and ultimately concluded that in respect c
of such lands only the Act, 1976 would apply, in the case on
hand as the lands in question were lying within the 'urban
agglomeration' area, the said conclusion which reached its
finality in this Court would operate as res judicata. The learned
senior counsel contended that though this contention was D
raised before the High Court, the Division Bench after referring
to the contention felt it unnecessary to decide the issue since
the stand of the appellant was rejected on other grounds.
24. While meeting the last of the submission of learned
senior counsel for the respondent, Mr. Soli J. Sorabji contended E
that the principle of res judicata can have no application to the
case on hand since none of the earlier proceedings relating to
Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' had anything to do with the lands of the
respondent with reference to which alone we are concerned
. and, therefore, on that score itself the said contention should F
be rejected. According to learned senior counsel, the
application of the principle of res judicata, as set out in Section
11 of CPC, was not fulfilled and, therefore, the said submission
made on behalf of the respondent cannot be considered. The
learned senior counsel pointed out to the specific facts which G
were referred to in the joint affidavits of two Deputy Collectors
filed in S.C.A. No.941/1980 wherein it was specifically averred
to the effect that since a long time to the knowledge of the land
holder, the land in question were demonstrated or meant for
residential purpose in the master plan which was prepared H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A since August 1976, that the land in question fell within the
definition of 'urban land' under Section 2(o) of the Act, 1976
and, therefore.• the overriding effect of Section 42 of the Act,
1976 excluded the application of the Act of 1960. The learned
senior counsel contended that in the light of the above peculiar
· B facts relating to Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' which ceased to be a
'Bid land' and was classified as residential plot in the Master
Plan at the relevant point of time, the stand of the authorities
as regards the exclusive application of Act, 1976 continued to
be maintained even after the said Act came to be repealed.
c The learned senior counsel contended that it will be
preposterous if a decision reached in regard to a case which
was governed by its own special facts to apply the principle of
res judicata to a different case where the fact situations are
entirely different and in which case in no prior proceedings it
0 was admitted by the authorities concerned that Act, 1976 alone
would apply to the exclusion of the Act of 1960.
25. Having heard the eloquent submissions of Shri Soli J.
Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the
enlightening submissions of Shri Naphade, learned senior
E counsel for the respondent, we find that while the simple case
of the appellant, namely, the State of Gujarat is that the
respondents' lands being 'Bid lands' are agricultural lands and
thereby governed by the provisions of Act of 1960, the whole
endeavour of the respondent was that the lands were never
F classified as "agricultural lands", that they were indisputably
"urban lands" governed by the provisions of the Act, 1976 and
consequently the application of the Act of 1960 stood excluded.
The enlightening submissions of the respective counsel oblige
us to set out various legal principles highlighted before us in
G order to appreciate the respective submissions and thereby
arrive at a just conclusion.
26. In the forefront, we want to make a detailed reference
to certain relevant provisions of the Act of 1960 prior to its
amendment and after its amendment, Saurashtra Act No.Ill of
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 535
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAUFULLA, J.)
1952, Saurashtra Act No.XXV of 1951, Saurashtra Act No. A
XXVI of 1951, Section 103 of The Government of India Act,
1935 and Article 252 of the Constitution. The relevant provisions
under the unamended Act of 1960 are Section 2(1), Section
2(3), Section 2(11 ), Section 2 (12), Section 2(17) and Section
6. Under the amended Act of 1960, the relevant provisions are B
Section 2(1) (a) (b), (c), Section 2(17) (i) (ii) (a), (b), (c), (d) and
Section (27A). Under Saurashtra Act No.Ill of 1952, the relevant
provisions are Section 2(a), (b), (e), (f), Section 4 and Section
5(1), (2). Under Saurashtra Act XXV of 1951, the relevant
provision are Sections 2(6), 2 (15) and 2(18). Under the c
Saurashtra Act No.XXVI of 1951, the relevant provision is
Section 2 (ii).
27. For easy reference, the above provisions are extracted
hereunder:
D
The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. 1960
Section 2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context
requires otherwise-
(1) "agriculture" includes horticulture, the raising of E
crops, grass or garden produce, the use by an
agriculturist of the land held by him or part thereof
for grazing but does not include-
(i) the use of any land, whether or not an F
appenage to rice or paddy land, for the
purpose of rab-mannure;
(ii) the cutting of wood, only;
(iii) dairy farming; G
(iv) poultry farming;
(v) breeding of live-stock; and
(vi) such other pursuits as may be prescribed. H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Explanation - If any question arises as to whether any land
or part thereof is used for any of the pursuits specified in
any of the sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such question shall be
decided by the Tribunal;
(3) "agriculturist" means a person who cultivates land
B
personally"
(11) "to cultivate" with its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions means to till or husband the land for
the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce,
c whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or
machinery or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon;
Explanation- A person who enters into a contract only to
cut grass or to gather the fruits or other produce of trees,
D on any land, shall not on that account only, be deemed to
cultivate such land;
(12) "to cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on
one's own account-
E (i) by one's own labour, or
(ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or
(iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any
member of one's family by hired labour or by servants on
F wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share;
Explanation-1.-A widow or a minor or a person who is
subject to any physical or mental disability, or a serving
member of the armed forces shall be deemed to cultivate
G land personally, if such land is cultivated by her or his
servants or hired labour;
Explanation II.- In the case of a joint family, land shall be
deemed to be cultivated personally, if it is so cultivated by
any member of such family;
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. llMNOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 53 7
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
(17) "land" means land which is used or capable of being A
used for agricultural purposes and includes the sites of
farm buildings appurtenant to such land;
Section 6. Ceiling on holding land - (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time being in force B
or in any agreement usage or decree or order of a Court,
with effect from the appointed day no person shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) be entitled to
hold whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and
partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area.
c
(2) Where an individual, who holds land, is a member of a
family, not being a joint family and land is also separately
held by such individual's spouse or minor children, then the
land held by the individual and the said members of the
individual's family shall be grouped together for the D
purposes of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall
apply to the total land so grouped together as if such land
had been held by one person.
(3) Where on the appointed day a person holds exempted E
land along with other land then-
(i) if the area of exempted land is equal to or more
than the ceiling area he shall not be entitled to hold other
land; and
F
(ii) if the area of exempted land is less than the
ceiling area, he shall not be entitled to hold other land in
excess of the area by which the exempted land is less than
the ceiling area.
(4) Land which under the foregoing provisions of this G
section a person is not entitled to hold shall be deemed
to be surplus land held by such person.
The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 !After
the amendment) H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A 2. In this Act, unless the context requires otherwise-
(1) "agriculture" includes-
(a) horticulture,
B (b) the raising of crops, grass or garden produce,
(c) the use by an agriculturist of the land held by him
or part thereof for grazing
17. "land" means-
c
(i) in relation to any period prior to the specified date,
land which is used or capable of being used for
agricultural purpose and includes the sites of farm
buildings appurtenant to such land;
D
(ii) In relation to any other period, land which is used
or capable of being used for agricultural purposes,
and includes-
(a) the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to
E such land;
(b) the lands on which grass grows naturally;
(c) t~e bid lands held by the Girasdars or
Barkhalidars under the Saurashtra Land
F Reforms Act, 1951, the Saurashtra Barkhali
Abolition Act, 1951 or the Saurashtra
Estates Acquisition Act, 1952, as the case
may be;
G (d) such bid lands as are held by a person who,
before the commencement of the
Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act,
1971 was a Ruler of an Indian State
comprised in the Saurashtra area of the
H State of Gujarat, as his private property in
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 539
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULlA, J.]
pursuance of the covenant entered into by the A
Ruler of such State:
(27A) "specified date" means the date of coming into
force of the Amending Act of 1972.
Under Saurashtra Act No.Ill of 1952 the relevant provisions B
are Section 2(a), (b), (e), (f), Section 4 and Section 5{1), (2):
"2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant to the
subject or context-
c
(a) "Bid land" means such land as on the 17th April,
1951 was specifically reserved and was being used
by a GiFasdar or Barkhalidar for grazing cattle or
for cutting grass:
(b) "cultivable waste" means cultivable land which has D
remained uncultivated for a period of three years
or more before the 17th April, 1951
(c) xxxxxxxxx
E
(d) xxxxxxxxx
(e) "land" means land of any description whatsoever
and includes benefits arising out of land and things
attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth. F
(f) words and expressions used but not defined, in this
Act, and defined in the Saurashtra Land Reforms
Act, 1951 and the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition
Act, 1951 shall have the meanings assigned to G
them in those Acts.
3. xxxxxxxxx
4. When a notification is issued by the Government in
respect of an estate or any part thereof under section 3, H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A then, with effect from the date specified in the notification,
the following consequences shall, in respect of that estate
or part thereof, ensue, namely:-
(a) (i) all public roads, lanes, paths, bridges,
ditches, dikes and fences on, or beside the
B
same, the bed of the sea and/or harbours,
creeks below high water mark, and of rivers
streams, nalas, lakes, public wells and tanks,
all bunds and palas, standing and flowing
water and gauchars;
c
(ii) all cultivable and uncultivable waste lands
(excluding land used for building or other non
agricultural purposes),
D (iii) all bid lands,
(iv) all unbuilt village site lands and village site
lands on which dwelling houses of artisans
and landless labourers are situated, and
E (v) all schools, Dharmashalas, village choras,
public temples and such other public
buildings or structures as may be specified
in the notification together with the sites on
which such buildings and structures stand,
F
Which are comprised in the estates so notified shall,
except in so far as any rights of any person other than the
Girasdar or the Barkhalidar may be established in and
over the same, and except as may otherwise be provided
by any law, for the lime being in force, vest in, and shall
G be deemed to be, with all rights in or over the same or
appertaining thereto, the property of the State of Gujarat
and all rights held by a Girasdar or a Barkahalidar in such
property shall be deemed to have been extinguished and
it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the general or
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 541
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
special orders of the Collector, to dispose of them as he A
deems fit, subject always to the rights of way and of other
rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting.
(b) A Girasdar or a Barkhalidar shall, subject to the
provisions of this Act, be deemed to be an occupant in 8
respect of all other land held by him.
5. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, or
section 4 -
(a) no bid land which is also uncultivable waste, c
wadas and kodias shall vest in, and be the property
of the State of Gujarat
(b) no bid land comprised in the estate of a
Girasdar who is considered to be of B and C class
for the purpose of making rehabilitation grant under D
the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951, or of a
Barkhalidar, the total area of agricultural land
comprised in whose estate does not exceed eight
hundred acres, shall vest in and be the property of
the State of Gujarat] and E
(c) no bid land which is also cultivable waste or no
village site land shall be acquired unless it is in
excess of the requirements of the Girasdar or
Barkhalidar in accordance with the rules to be F
made in this behalf; and
(d) in the case of Girasdari Majmu villages, one
fourth of the total area of bid land in the village shall
not be acquired.
G
(2) If any bid land or village site, land is not acquired under
the provisions of sub-section (1) and such bid land or
village site land is use by the Girasdar or Barkhalidar for
a different purpose, it shall be liable to be acquired under
the provision of section 4." H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Under Saurashtra Act No.XXV of 1951, the relevant
provisions are Sections 2 (6), 2(15) and 2(18). They are as
follows:
"2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context:-
B
(6) "bid land" means such land as has been used by the
Girasdar for grazing his cattle or for cutting grass for the
use of his cattle.
c (15) "Girasdar" means any talukdar, bhagdar, bhayat,
cadet or mulgirasia and includes any person whom the
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare to be a Girasdar for the purposes of this Act.
(18) "land" means any agricultural land, bid land or
D cultivable waste"
Under Saurashtra Act No.XXVI of 1951 the relevant
provision is Section 2(ii).
E 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant to the
subject or context-
(i) )()()()()()()()()(
(ii) "bid land" means such land as has been used by
F Barkhalidar for grazing his cattle or for cutting grass
for the use of his cattle;"
28. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before
us, we wish to make a specific reference to the Preamble as
G well as the object of the Act of 1960. The Preamble shows that
the Act was contemplated and was brought into effect since it
was felt expedient in public interest to make a uniform provision
for the whole of the State of Gujarat and in particular in respect
of restrictions upon holding agricultural land in excess of certain
limits. The expediency so noted was for securing the
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. w.NOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 543
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
distribution of agricultural land to subserve the common good A
for the purpose of allotment of some lands to persons who are
in need of land for agriculture and also to appreciate for other
consequential and incidental matters. As far as the object of
the Act was concerned, it is stated therein that the said
enactment came to be enacted only for the purpose of fixing B
the ceiling area and not with any intention directly to interfere
with the rights and liabilities of landlords and tenants.
29. Keeping the above perspective of the law makers in
mind, whe·n we examine Section 2(17) which defines the
expression 'land' it means the land which is used or capable C
of being used for agricultural purposes including the sites of
farm, building appurtenant to such land. Section 6 of the 1960
act imposes restriction in the holding of the land which has been
defined under Section 2(17) of the Act which is in excess of
the ceiling area. The ceiling area has been set out under D
Section 2(5) of the Act. The definition of 'land' in its cognates
and expression is specific in its tenor and mentions about its
usage as well as its capability of usage for agricultural
purposes. The expression "agriculture" has been defined under
section 2(1) of the act which inter alia includes horticulture, E
raising of crops, grass or garden produce and the use by an
agriculturist of the land held by him either in full or part for
grazing purposes. The definition of "agriculturist" under Section
2(3) read along with Section 2(11) and 2(12) which define the
expression 'to cultivate' and 'to cultivate personally' make the F
position clear that it would include a person who indulges in the ·
avocation of agriculture by way of cultivation of the land either
by himself or through other persons again under the supervision
of his own men.
G
30. A careful consideration of the above provisions under
the Act of 1960 gives a clear idea that lands which are used
as well as which are capable of being used for the purpose of
agriculture including lands used for raising grass or either full
or part of it used for grazing purposes would come within the H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A ambit of the Act, which in turn would be subject to the
restrictions imposed for the purpose of ascertaining the ceiling
limit. Consequently, the excess or surplus land in the holding
of a person who is an agriculturist is to be ascertained in order
to initiate and ultimately acquire such surplus land. Such
B acquisition as expressed in the Preamble to the Act would be
for the purpose of equal distribution of land to other landless
persons.
31. Keeping the above statutory provisions in mind, when
C we consider the respective submissions, the following broad
legal principles are required to be dealt with by us.
(i) Whether 'Bid Land' would fall within the definition
'Land' read along with the definition of 'Agriculture'
as defined under Sections 2(17) and 2(1) of the
D Act of 1960?
(ii) In order to ascertain the nature of description of
'Bid Land' can the definition of the said expression
under the earlier statutes viz. Act No.XXV of 1951,
Act No.XXVJ of 1951 and Act No.Ill of 1952 can
E
be imported ?
(iii) What is the implication of the Urban Land Ceiling
Act, 1976 vis-a-vis the Act of 1960 in respect of
'Bid Land'?
F
(iv) Whether the Amendment Act of 1974 which came
into effect from 01.04.1976 and the definition of
'Bid Land' under the said Amendment Act of 1974
can be applied for the purpose of deciding the
G issue involved in this litigation ?
(v) Whether the ratio decidendi of this Court in
Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar (supra) can be applied
to the facts of this case ?
H (vi) Whether the orders of the authorities under the
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 545
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Act of 1960 impugned before the High Court were A
hit by the principles of Res Judicata ?
(vii) What is the effect of the repealing of the Urban
Land Ceiling Act over the Act of 1960 ?
32. Though the definition of 'land' and 'agriculture' read B
together would include a 'land' used for raising grass or used
for grazing purposes, the question for our consideration is
whether 'Bid lands' can be brought within the scope of the said
expression, namely, the definition of 'land' read along with the
definition of 'agriculture' under the Act of 1960 as has been so C
construed by the authorities constituted under the provisions of
Act of 1960 up to the level of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. On
behalf of the appellant it was contended that the subsequent
amendment brought out under the 1974 amending Act which
came to be notified on 01.04.1976 was only by way of D
clarification about 'Bid lands' in consonance with the definition
of 'agriculture'. According to the respondent even such a
clarification sought to be made under the amending Act 1974
by way of removal of doubts only revealed that as on the date
when Act, 1976 which came into effect from 17.02.1976 'Bid E
lands' were not part of agricultural lands as defined under
Section 2(1) read along with 2(17) of the 1960 Act.
33. Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned senior counsel, to support
the submission made on behalf of the appellant, would draw
succor to the definition of the very same expression 'Bid land' F
under Act No.XXV of 1951 as well as Act No.XXVI of 1951 and
Act No.Ill of 1952. Under Act XXV of 1951 in Section 2(6)
definition of 'Bid land' has been defined to mean such land
raised by Girasdar for grazing his cattle or for cutting grass for
the use of his cattle. Under Section 2(18) of Act No.XXV of G
1951, the definition of 'land' under said Act included 'Bid land'.
The purport of the said enactment was to end Girasdar system
and while doing so regulate the relationship. between the
Girasdars and their tenants and to enable the latter to become
occupants of the 'land' held by them as tenants and H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A simultaneously to provide for the amount of compensation
payable to Girasdars for the extinguishment of their rights.
Whatever be the purport of the enactment, the definition of 'land'
as defined under Section 2(18) and 'Bid land' as defined under
Section 2(6) discloses that 'Bid land' would be a land which
B was treated on par with agricultura·1 land and such land is none
other than the land which is used for grazing by cattle as well
as for cutting grass for the use of cattle.
34. With that when we come to the nature of description
C of 'Bid land' in the Act No.Ill of 1952, under Section 2(a) 'Bid
land' has been defined to mean such land as on 17.04.1951
specifically reserved for being used by a Girasdar or
Barkhalidar for grazing cattle or for cutting grass. Under Section
4 the manner of vesting of such of those lands described therein
vested in the State and thereby assuming the character of the
D property of the State of Gujarat and consequently all rights held
by Girasdars or Barkhalidars in such property deemed to have
been extinguished. For our limited purpose, it will be sufficient
to confine our consideration to the definition under Section 2
(a) of Act No.Ill of 1952 which defines 'Bid land'. As stated
E earlier 'Bid land' is a land used for grazing by cattle or for cutting
grass in the tenure lands held by Girasdar or Barkhalidar. When
we refer to Saurashtra Abolition Act 1951 i.e. Act XXVI of 1951
the definition under section 2 (ii) which defines 'Bid land' to
mean such land as has been used by Barkhalidars for grazing
F his cattle or for cutting grass for the use of his cattle. The purport
of the said enactment was for improvement of the land revenue
administration and agrarian reforms which necessitated
abolition of Barkhalidars tenure prevailing in certain parts of
Saurashtra. Under Section 6(1) of Act XXVI of 1951, the right
G of allotment of land under the said act in favour of Barkhalidar
is stipulated. The manner in which the application for allotment
is to be made is also provided therein. Under sub-section (2)
of Section 6 while making an application for allotment the
details to be furnished by Barkhalidar has been set out wherein
H under clause (c) (iii) of sub clause (2) of Section 6 it is stipulated
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 54 7
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAUFULLA, J.)
that full particulars of a Barkhalidar's estate containing the area A
of agriculture also, 'Bid land' and 'cultivable waste' in his estate
should be furnished. Apparently in order to fulfill the said
obligation by a Barkhalidar, the definition of 'Bid land' has been
set out in Section 2(ii) of Act No.XXVI of 1951.
B
35. Keeping the above statutory prescription relating to the
description of 'Bid land' in the above enactments which were
all prior to coming into force of Act, 1976 namely, 17.02.1976
the nature of 'Bid land' has been succinctly described to mean
a land which was used for grazing of cattle or for cutting grass
for the use of rearing of cattle. To recapitulate the definition of C
'agriculture' under Section 2(1 ), as well as, the definition of 'land'
under Section 2(17) of the unamended Act of 1960, the
expression 'agriculture' included inter alia, the land used for
raising of grass, as well as, the land held by the agriculturist
for grazing purpose. When we consider the explanation part of D
sub section (1) of Section 2 which contains as many as Clauses
(i) to (vi) the lands used for grazing purposes as well as cutting
of grass for rearing of cattle are not the lands to be excluded
from the definition of 'agriculture'. The definition of 'land' under
Section 2(17) categorically mentions that the land which is E
either used or capable of being used for agriculture purposes
would fall within the said definition. Therefore reading the above
definitions together a 'land' where grass is grown or used for
grazing purposes fall within the inclusive provision of the
definition of 'agriculture'. The definition of 'Bid land' in the earlier F
enactments namely Act Nos.XXV of 1951, XXVI of 1951 and
Act No.Ill of 1952 make the position clear that the 'Bid land' is
nothing but the land used for grazing of cattle and for raising
grass for the purpose of rearing of cattle.
G
36. Under the amended Act of 1960 the definition of
agriculture under Section 2( 1) as it existed prior to the said
amendment was maintained. In addition, some of those
excluded categories, namely, the one mentioned in sub clauses
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) were also included as falling within the H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A definition of the expression 'agriculture'. Further the nature of
exclusion as mentioned in sub-clause (vi) of clause 1 of Section
2, namely, such other pursuits as may be described was also
mentioned by stating that such of those pursuits which have
been prescribed prior to the specified date would continue to
B stand excluded for that period which was prior in point of time
to the specified date as mentioned in the Amendment Act
which was notified on 01.04.1976. Here and now it is relevant
to mention the date which was specified under the Amendment
Act which as per Section 2 (27A) meant the date of the coming
c into force of the amended act of 1972, namely, 01.04.1976.
Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn would be that while as
from 01.04.1976 the definition of 'agriculture' under the
amended Act was wider in scope which included land used
whether or not as an appendage to rice or paddy land for the
purpose of rabmanure, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding
0
of livestock and the cutting of woods and such of those lands
which were in the excluded category under the unamended Act
cease to have effect of such exclusion on and after 01.04.1976.
37. Having regard to the reference to the specified date,
E namely, the date of notification (i.e.) 01.04.1976, the expanded
definition of 'land' under Section 2(17) was brought to our notice
wherein specific reference to the 'Bid lands' held by Girasdars
and Barkhalidars under Act Nos.XXV of 1951, XXVI of 1951
and Ill of 1952 and also such 'Bid lands' held by a person prior
F to the commencement of the Constitution 26th Amendment Act
1971 as a 'ruler' of an Indian State comprised in the Saurashtra
Area of State of Gujarat. The endeavour of learned counsel for
the respondent while drawing our attention to the new Section
2(17), in particular, the reference to 'Bid lands' in clause (c) and
G (d) of Section 2 (17) (ii) was to stress upon the point that a clear
distinction was drawn as regards the land falling within the said
definition held by a person prior to the specified date and after
the specified date. Under Section 2(17) (i) after the amendment
the provision relating to the definition of 'land' was sought to
H be distinguished as was existing prior to the specified date
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 549
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
while under Section 2(17)(ii) a wider scope of such definition A
of 'land' was introduced. Having regard to such distinction
shown in respect of a 'land' one prior to the specified date and
the one in relation to any other period, learned counsel
contended that the specific reference to 'Bid lands' held by
Girasdar and Barkhalidar under sub clause (c) and (d) in B
Section 2 (17) (ii) makes a world of difference, as the scope
of inclusion of the 'Bid lands' within the ambit of the expression
'land' under Section.2(17) was introduced on and after
01.04.1976 namely the specified date which was not the
position prior to the said date. c
38. The submission of leaned counsel was two fold,
namely, that the specific reference to 'Bid lands' under Section
2(17) sub clause (ii) (c) and (d) came to be introduced for the
first time on and after 01.04.1976 and hence the said situation
requires a different consideration in the light of the Central D
enactment namely the Act, 1976 which had already come into
force from 17.02.1976 by the State Legislature surrendering its
legislative competence to the Union Government by invoking
Article 252 (1) of the Constitution. The further submission is that
in the lii:iht of the field being occupied by the Central Act, having E
regard to the restriction contained in Article 252 (2) of the
Constitution there could not have been any competence for
State Government to bring about an amendment effective from
01.04.1976 in relation to the Act and the subject with reference
to which the State Government has surrendered its legislative F
power that bringing any amendment was exclusively within the
competence of the Parliament and thereby the State
amendment had no effect and was void as from its inception.
39. Before considering the said submission it is necessary G
to also refer to the provisions contained in the Act, 1976 for an
effective consideration and to reach a just conclusion. Under
the Act, 1976 by virtue of Section 1(2) of the Act, the Act was
applied to the whole of the State of Gujarat. Under Section 2(a)
the appointed day was defined to mean in relation to any State H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A to which the Act applied in the first instance the date of
introduction of the Act, 1976 in the Parliament which was
admittedly 17.02.1976. Under Section 2(n) what is an 'urban
agglomeration' has been defined and it is not in dispute that
district Rajkot where the lands in question situate falls within
B the definition of urban agglomeration mentioned in Schedule
1 of the Act. Under Section 2(o) 'Urban Land' has been defined
to mean any land situated within the limits of an urban
agglomeration referred to as such in the Master Plan. However,
it does not include any such 'land' which is mainly used for the
c purpose of 'agriculture'. Under Section 2 (q) 'vacant land' has
been defined to mean land not being mainly used for the
purpose of agriculture in an urban agglomeration subject to
other exclusions contained in the said sub-clause (q). The
expression 'agriculture' has been specifically defined under the
Explanation (A) to Section 2(o) by which it is stated that
0
agriculture would include 'Horticulture' but would not include
'raising of grass', 'dairy farming', 'poultry farming', 'breeding of
livestock' and such cultivation or growing of such plant as may
be prescribed. Under Explanation (B) it is mentioned that lands
are not being used mainly for the purpose of 'agriculture' if such
E land has not entered in the revenue or land records before the
appointed day as for the purpose of 'agriculture'. Under
Explanation (C) it is further stipulated that notwithstanding ·
anything contained in Explanation (B) 'land' shall not be deemed
mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been
F specified in the Master Plan for the purpose other than
agriculture. Section 6 of the Act, 1976 prescribes the ceiling
limit of vacant land which a person can hold in an urban
agglomeration of the Act, 1976. If a person holds vacant land
in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act,
G he should file the statement before the competent authority of
all vacant land to enable the State Government to acquire such
vacant land in excess of ceiling limit under the Act.
40. In the light of the above provisions contained in the Act,
H 1976 Mr. Naphade learned senior counsel contended that
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 551
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAUFULI.A, J.]
Amendment Act of 1974 would be a 'still born child' having A
regard to the existence of the Act, 1976 as from 17.02.1976.
The learned counsel also sought to repel the contention of the
appellants that the date of passing of the Act alone would be
relevant and not the date of notification. For that purpose,
learned counsel relied upon In the matter of the Hindu B
Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (supra). In the said
decision the Federal Court considered the question referred
to by His Excellency the Governor General under Section 213
of the Constitution Act. The first question is relevant for our
purpose which reads as under:- c
"(1) Does either the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act,
1937 (Central Act, 18 of 1937) which was passed by the
Legislative Assembly on 4th February. 1937. and by the
Council of State on 6th April 1937, and which received the
Governor-General's assent on 14th April 1937. or the Hindu D
Women's rights to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938
(Central Act, 11 of 1938) which was passed in all its stages
after 1st April 1937, operate to regulate (a)succession to
agricultural land? (b) devolution by survivorship of property
other than agricultural land? E
(underlining is ours)
41. At page 75 the Federal Court has answered the said
question in the following words:-
F
"............ .II is not to be supposed that a legislative body
will waste its time by discussing a bill which, even if it
receives the Governor-General's assent, would obviously
be beyond the competence of the Legislature to enact, but
if it chooses to do so, that is its own affair, and the only G
function of a Court is to pronounce upon the bill· after it has
become an Act. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, it is
immaterial that the powers of the Legislature changed
during the passage of the bill from the Legislative
Assembly to the Council of State. The only date with which H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A the Court is concerned is 14th April 1937. the date on
which the Governor-General's assent was given: and the
question whether the Act was or was not within the
competence of the Legislature must be determined with
reference to that date and to none other."
B
(underlining is ours)
42. By relying upon the said decision, learned counsel
contended that the date of passing of the Act was irrelevant and
what was relevant is the date when the Act was notified, namely,
C 01.04.1976. We find force in the said submission and without
diluting much on the said contention we proceed ·to consider
the other contentions raised on the footing that the amendment
came into effect only from 01.04.1976 i.e. after the coming into
force of the Act, 1976, namely, 17.02.1976. We have kept J
D ourselves abreast of the various provisions of the unamended
Act of 1960, the definition of 'Bid land' under Act XXV of 1951,
XX.VI of 1951 and Ill of 1952 and keeping aside whatever
amendment sought to be introduced by the Amendment act of
1974 with effect from 01.04.1976 we proceed to examine
E whether the contention of the respondent can be countenanced.
43. In this context, we are also obliged to note the definition
of 'vacant land' under the Act, 1976 as defined under Section
2(q) and also the definition of 'Urban Land' under Section 2(o).
Since the respondent strongly relied upon the operation of the
F Act, 1976 as from 17.02.1976 in order to contend that the
Amendment Act of 1974 will be of no consequence being a still
born child after the coming into force of the Act, 1976 it will be
appropriate to examine the said contention in the first instance.
G 44. Under the Act, 1976 while defining 'vacant land', the
said definition specifically excludes a 'land' used for the
purpose of 'agriculture'. The definition of 'Urban Land' again
makes the position clear that any land situated within the urban
agglomeration referred to as such in the Master Plan would
H exclude any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 553
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
'agriculture'. Under the Explanation A to Section 2(o) such of A
those lands which are used for 'raising of grass' stood excluded
from the use of 'agriculture'. It is worthwhile to note that the 'land
used for grazing' has however not been specifically excluded
from the definition of 'agriculture' in the said Explanation 'A'. The
conspectus consideration of the above provisions leads us to 8
conclude that the apparent purport and intent, therefore, was to
exclude lands used for agriculture from the purview of Act, 1976
which would enable the holders of lands of such character used
for agriculture to be benefited by protecting their holdings even
if such lands are within the urban agglomeration limits and C
thereby depriving the competent authority from seeking to
acquire those lands as excess lands in the hands of the holder
of such lands.
45. That being the position, by the implication of the Act,
1976 in respect of the land used for agriculture within the urban D
agglomeration, the question for consideration is whether such
exclusion from acquisition having regard to the character of the
land as used for agriculture would entitle the owner of such land
to contend that such exclusion would deprive the competent
authorities under the 1960 Act to restrict their powers to be E "·
exercised under the said Act and from resorting to acquisition
by applying the provisions contained in the said Act. We are of
the considered opinion that the conspectus consideration of the
various provisions of the Act, 1976 considered again in the light
of the object and purport of the 1960 Act which was intended F
for equal distribution of agricultural lands to the landless poor
agriculturists, the application of the said Act will have to be
independently made and can be so applied as it stood prior to
the coming into force of the Act, 1976 as from 17.02.1976. At
this juncture it will have to be noted and stated that the subject G
namely, the 'land' being an item falling under Entry 18 of List II
of Schedule VII of the Constitution, by virtue of the so-called
surrender of power of legislation in respect of the said entry
namely 'land' by way of Central Legislation namely Act, 1976
to be enacted by the Parliament pursuant to a State resolution H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A by invoking Article 252 (1) of the Constitution, there would be
every justification in the submission on behalf of the respondent
that any subsequent legislation by way of Amendment or
otherwise with regard to the said Entry, namely, 'land' will be
directly hit by the specific embargo contained in Article 252 (2)
B of the Constitution.
46. Once we steer clear of the said legal position and
proceed to examine the contention raised, as was highlighted
by us in the initial part of our judgment the concept of 'Bid land'
was not a new phenomenon to the 1960 Act. The definition of
C 'Bid land' under Section 2 (6) of the Saurashtra Act, 1951 ·clearly
stated that it would refer to the lands used for grazing of cattle
and for cutting grass for the use of cattle. The said definition
was consistently maintained in the Saurashtra Act No.XXVI of
1951, as well as, Saurashtra Act No.Ill of 1952. When we
D examine the definition of the expression 'agriculture' under
Section 2(1) of the 1960 Act uninfluenced by the Amendment
Act of 1974, it specifically define 'agriculture' to include the land
used for raising of grass, crops or garden produce, the use by
an agriculturist of the land held by him or part thereof for grazing.
E Grazing as per the dictionary meaning "graze land suitable for
pasture''. The word "pasture" means the land covered with grass
etc. suitable for grazing animals especially cattle or sheep or
herbage for animals or for animals to graze. Therefore, the land
meant for grazing has got its own intrinsic link with the cattle
F for its pasturing. The apparent intention of the legislature in
including the land used for grazing or for raising grass as per
the definition of 'agriculture' under the 1960 Act is quite explicit,
inasmuch as, the use of cattle in farming operation was
inseparable at the relevant point of time. Therefore, when the
G Legislature thought it fit to include the land for raising grass and
used for grazing as part of definition of 'agriculture' there is no
need to seek succour from any other definition which was
sought to be introduced at any later point of time by way of
amendment under the Amendment Act of 1974.
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 555
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
47. While rebutting the submission of the appellant in A
placing reliance upon the definition of 'Bid land' under the
provisions of Saurashtra Act Nos.XXVof 1951, XXVI of 1951
and Ill of 1952, Mr. Naphade learned senior counsel for the
respondent contended that the definition of 'Bid land' in these
enactments was with particular reference to the land held and B
used by Girasdars and Barkhalidars and that there was no
reference to the lands held by any Ruler of an erstwhile State.
It was the further submission of learned senior counsel that
those legislations were specifically dealing with the tenure
holdings of Girasdars and Barkhalidars and that the purport of c
those legislations were to denude those large scale tenure
holders of the lands held by them with a view to entrust such
lands with the cultivating tenants themselves and, therefore
import of the definition of 'Bid land' in those legislations will not
be appropriate while considering the implication of the 0
provisions contained in the 1960 Act.
48. Though, we appreciate the ingenious submissions put
forth before us on behalf of the respondent, we are not in a
position to accept such an argument for more than one reason.
The said submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason E
that what we are concerned with is the definition of 'Bid land'
de hors the ownership or in whose possession such land
remain or vest on any particular date. In other words, the
character of 'Bid land' cannot vary simply because it is in the
hands of Girasdars and Barkhalidars or with any other person F
including a former Ruler of a State. The reference to the
definition of 'Bid land' under those enactments can be definitely
considered in order to find out as to what is the nature and
character of a 'land' and not as to who was holding it.
G
49. The Saurashtra Act No.XXV of 1951 was introduced
for the improvement of land revenue administration and for
ultimately putting an end to the Girasdari system. The purport
of the legislation was to regulate the relationship of Girasdars
and their tenants in order to enable the latter to become H
5.56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A occupants of the lands held by them and to provide for the
payment of compensation to the Girasdars for the
extinguishment of their rights. Again Saurashtra Act No.XXVI
of 1951 was brought in to provide for certain measures for the
abolition of Barkhalidar tenure for Saurashtra and also for the
B improvement of the land revenue administration. In other words,
the said legislation was for the improvement of land revenue
administration and for agrarian reforms which necessitated
abolition of Barkhalidar tenure prevailing in certain parts of
Saurashtra. In order to ascertain the extent of lands held by the
c Girasdars and Barkhalidars the definition of 'agricultural land',
'agriculture' and 'Bid Land' was specified in the respective
statutes. Such definition was required in order to ascertain the
extent of lands held by Girasdars and Barkhalidars. 'Bid land'
was one type of land held by such tenure holder by way of grant
0 and it was in that context the character of 'Bid Land' was defined
for the purpose of ascertaining the total extent of land held by
each of the Girasdar and Barkhalidar. Under Section 3 and 4
of Saurashtra Act No. Ill of 1952 which Act was introduced to
provide for acquisition of certain estates of Girasdars and
E Barkhalidars 'Bid Land' was defined under Section 2{a) of the
Act.
50. Section 3 of the Act empowered the Government to
issue notification from time to time in the Official Gazette and
declare that with effect from such date that may be specified
F in the notification, all rights, title and interest of Girasdars or
Barkhalidars in respect of any estate or part of an estate
comprised in the notification would cease and vest in the State
of Gujarat. As a sequel to such vesting, all the incidents of the
tenure attached to any land comprised in such estate or part
G thereof would be deemed to have been extinguished. What are
all the consequences that would follow pursuant to issuance of
notifii;ation, has been set out in Section 4. However, under
Section 5(1) which is a non-obstante clause which makes it
clear that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 or
H Section 4 'Bid Land' were exempted from such acquisition.
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 557
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
51. It is true that though under the Saurashtra Act XXV of A
1951, Saurashtra Act XXVI of 1951 and Saurashtra Act Ill of
1952, the purport of the enactments were to extinguish all rights
held by Girasdars and Barkhalidars as well as the Rulers of the
State in the State of Gujarat in respect of their estates which
among other kinds of lands included 'Bid Land' also. B
52. Here again, it will have to be stated that this Act was
also enacted to provide certain measures for the abolition of
the Barkhalidars tenure in Saurashtra. Therefore, while the
submissions of the learned senior counsel for the respondent
that the above enactm~nts were brought into effect with C
particular reference to the holding of certain estates by
Girasdars and Barkhalidars as well as erstwhile Rulers of
State, such restricted application of the Act cannot be held to
mean that the definition of 'Bid land' should also be read out in
a restricted fashion. As stated by us earlier, the operation of D
extinguishment of the rights of such specific persons viz ..
Girasdars and Barkhalidars as well as the Rulers does not
mean that the definition assigned to 'Bid land' should be
restricted in respect of those specific persons alone and cannot
be applied in general for any other purpose. After all, the E
attempt of the appellants in relying upon the definition of 'Bid
land' in those enactments was to understand the nature and use
for which the 'Bid land' is put to. It cannot be said that merely
because those enactments were brought out for the purpose
of extinguishment of the rights of certain class of persons viz. F
Girasdars and Barkhalidars, the definition of 'Bid land'
contained in those Legislations should under no circumstances
be considered by any other authority functioning under other
enactments. We are convinced that though Saurashtra Act
Nos.Ill of 1952, XXV of 1951 and XXVI of 1951 pertain to the G
estates held by Girasdars and Barkhalidars as well as the
Rulers of the erstwhile Saurashtra State, the definition of 'Bid
land' contained in those legislations could however be taken
into account for the purpose of understanding the meaning of
'Bid land'. Therefore, the arguments of the learned senior H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A counsel for the respondent in seeking to restrict the meaning
of 'Bid land' in the Saurashtra Act Nos.XXV of 1951, Act XXVI
of 1951 and Act Ill of 1952 exclusively to those specified
persons viz., Girasdars, Barkhalidars and the Rulers cannot be
accepted. In other words once the 'Bid land' can be defined to
B mean such land used for grazing of cattle or for cutting grass
for the use of cattle irrespective of the nature of possession of
such lands with whomsoever it may be, a 'Bid land' would be a
'Bid land' for all practical purposes. It is also to be noted that
nothing was brought to our notice that a 'Bid land' is capable
C of being defined differently or that it was being used for different
purpose by different persons.
53. We shall deal with the object of the Amendment Act
1974, namely, for removal of doubts a little later. For the
present, inasmuch as, we have to a very large extent accepted
D the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the
invocation of the Amendment Act of 1974 cannot be made
having regard to its subsequent emergence, namely,
01.04.1976 i.e. after the coming into force of Act, 1976 as from
17 .02.1976, we confine our consideration to the position that
E prevailed under the unamended Act of 1960. After all our
endeavour is only to find out whether the 1960 Act is applicable
in respect of the lands held by the respondent for the purpose
of its enforcement or otherwise against the respondent.
F 54. One other submission of the learned senior counsel
for the respondent was that the respondent was once a Ruler
cannot be held to be an 'agriculturalist', inasmuch as, the
definition of 'agriculturist' under Section 2(3) means a person
who cultivate the land personally. We were not impressed by
the said submission, inasmuch as, the definition of an
G 'agriculturist' is not merely confined to Section 2(3) alone. The
said definition has to be necessarily considered along with the
definition "to cultivate" as defined under Section 2(11 ), as well
as, the expression "to cultivate personally" as defined under
Section 2(12) of the Act. Those expressions considered
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 559
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUUA, J.]
together make the position clear that even a person cultivating A
the lands by ones own labour or by any other member of one's
family or under the personal supervision of oneself or any
member of ones' family by hired labour or by servants on wages
payable in cash or kind would nonetheless fall within the four
corners of the expression "agriculturist". Therefore, the B
expression "agriculturist" used in the definition Clause 2(3) or
"agriculture" under Section 2(1) is wide enough to include the
respondent who though was once a 'Ruler' and was not tilling
the land by himself would still fall within the definition of
'agriculturisf when such agricultural operation namely cultivation c
of land is carried out with the support of any one of his family
members by supervising such operation or by engaging any
labour to carry out such cultivation. We are therefore of the firm
view that the 'Bid land', the nomenclature of which was
categorically admitted by the respondent and having regard to 0
its nature and purpose for which it was put to use would
squarely fall within the definition of 'agriculture' as defined under
Section 2(1) of the Act of 1960 as it originally stood unaffected
by the coming into force of the Act, 1976 as well as the
Amendment of 1974. In the result, its application to those 'Bid E
lands' held by the respondent cannot be thwarted.
55. We shall now deal with the question whether the
amendment Act of 1974 which was notified as from 01.04.1976
does in any way affect the application of 1960 Act as it originally
stood having regard to the enforcement of the Amendment Act F
by drawing a clear distinction as betWeen the position which
was existing prior to the specified date namely 01.04.1976 and
after the said date.
56. According to learned senior counsel for the respondent G
the definition of 'land' under Section 2(17) after the amendment,
namely, after 01.04.1976 seeks to differentiate between the
nature of land which would be governed by the provisions of
the 1960 Act i.e. one prior to the specified date and thereafter.
Under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(17) of the 1960 Act while H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A defining the 'land' it is specifically mentioned that the same
would mean "in relation to any period prior to the specified date,
'land' which is used or capable of being used for agricultural
purpose and includes the sites of farm buildings appurtenant
to such "land". For that purpose when we refer to the definition
B of 'agriculture' under Section 2(1) of the Amended Act a wider
definition was brought in by including in the said definition
clauses (d) to (h) which, inter alia, covered the use of any land,
whether or not an appanage to rice or paddy land for the
purpose of rabmanure, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding
c of live-stock, and the cutting of wood which class of lands were
specifically excluded from the definition of 'agriculture' prior to
the amendment. The proviso to the said sub-clause (1) of
Section 2 also specifies that such inclusion in the definition of
'agriculture' was not applicable in relation to any period prior
0 to the specified date, namely, 01.04.1976. That apart, under
Section 2(17)(ii) in regard to the period subsequent to _the
specified date, namely, 01.04.1976 the definition of'land' would
include the lands on which grass grown on its own, the 'Bid land'
held by Girasdars and Barkhalidars under the Saurashtra Act
E Nos.XXV of 1951, XXVI of 1951 and Ill of 1952 as well as such
'Bid lands' which were held by a person who before the
commencement of the Constitution was a 'Ruler' of an Indian
State comprised in the Saurashtra area of the State of Gujarat.
The contention, therefore, was that but for such inclusion of 'Bid
lands' in the amended definition of Section 2(17)(ii) there was
F no scope to proceed against such 'Bid lands' held by
Girasdars and Barkhalidars as well as the 'Rulers' of erstwhile
State.
57. In this context learned senior counsel for the
G respondent placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in
State of Kamataka Vs. Union of India & another - (1978) 2
SCR 1 and contended that when the language is clear and
unambiguous one need not have to delve into the Objects and
Reasons in order to find out its implication. The said contention
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 561
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
was by way of rebuttal to the submission of learned senior A
counsel for the appellants that the Objects and Reasons of the
1974 Act disclose that the same was brought into effect only
with a view to remove certain doubts as regards 'Bid lands'
and, therefore, the amendment was not contemplated to include
'Bid lands' for the first time in addition to the other type of lands B
described under the unamended Act of 1960.
58. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law
as propounded by the l~arned senior counsel for the respondent
and as has been stated by the Constitution Bench of this Court C
in paragraphs 38 and 39 of Pathumma (supra). In paragraph
39 this Court did say:
"39 .....We are, however, unable to agree with this argument
because in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions
of the Act, it is not necessary for us to delve into the D
statement of objects and reasons of the Act. .... "
59. We too are not inclined to go by the argument based
on the objects and reasons in relation to a 'Bid land'. We have
considered the definition of 'agriculture' under Section 2(1 ), the E
definition of 'agriculturist' under Section 2(3) along with the
expressions 'a person who cultivates land personally' and the
definition of 'land' under Section 2(17) of the unamended Act.
Having examined the nature of description of those expressions
contained therein, we are convinced that the legislature
intended and did include 'lands' held by 'agriculturist' where F
grass is raised or used for grazing purposes as part of
agricultural land which was in the possession of agriculturist.
Such lands where grass is grown or used for grazing purpose
are always known as 'Bid land'. Such 'Bid land' was ultimately
brought within the definition of 'land' under Section 2(17) of the G
Act of 1960. Therefore, even by keeping aside the implication
of the wider definition which was introduced by the Amendment
Act of 1974 in regard to 'Bid lands' and going by the definition
of 'agriculture' and 'land' under Section 2(1) and 2(17) of the
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Act of 1960, we have no difficulty in taking a definite conclusion
that such definition contained in the Act as it originally stood
did include 'Bid lands' which lands were exclusively meant for
cutting grass for cattle or used for grazing purposes. Therefore,
there was no necessity for this Court to draw any further
B assistance either from the Objects and Reasons or from the
provisions of the Amended Act of 1974 in order to hold that
'Bid lands' were part of agricultural land governed by the
provisions of the Act of 1960.
60. In that respect when reliance was placed upon the
C recent decision of this Court in Nagbhai Najbhai Khackar
(supra) on behalf of the appellant, we find that the said decision
fully support the stand of the appellant.. Of course, in the said
decision the question posed for consideration was "whether
Bid lands were required to be taken into consideration for the
D purpose of land ceiling under the 1960 Act as amended by the
Act of 1974 which came into force on 01.04.1976". This Court
while examining the said question posed for its consideration
however dealt with a specific submission made on behalf of
the appellant herein which has been set out in paragraph 11:
E
"11. It was further submitted that the lands in question are
in fact "agricultural" lands. They survived acquisition under
the earlier three Acts only because they were "bid lands"
which by definition under those Acts were lands "being
F used" by Girasdars/Barkhalidars for grazing cattle. That,
under the Ceiling Act, Section 2(1) defines the use of land
for the purposes of grazing cattle as agricultural purpose
and thus, according to the learned counsel, by their very
definition "bid lands" are capable of being used for
agricultural purpose, namely, grazing cattle."
G
61. In paragraphs 20 and 21 it has been held as under:
"20. There is one more reason for not accepting the
argument of the appellants. The subject lands survived
H acquisition under the 1952 Act only because they were "bid
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 563
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
lands" which by definition under those Acts were treated A
as lands being used by the girasdars for grazing cattle
(see Section 2(a) of the 1952 Act). Now, under the present
Ceiling Act, Section 2(1) defines the use of land for the
purpose of grazing cattle as an agricultural purpose. Thus,
"bid lands" fall under Section 2(1) of the Ceiling Act. This B
is one more reason for coming to the conclusion that the
Ceiling Act as amended applies to "bid lands". (underline
ours)
21. It is also important to note that under Section 5(1) of C
the 1952 Act all lands saved from acquisition had to be
"bid lands" which by definition under Section 2(a) of the
1952 Act were the lands being used by a Girasdar or a
Barkhalidar for grazing cattle or for cutting grass. If the
lands in question were put to any other use, they were
liable to acquisition under Section 5(2). Because the D
subject lands were used for grazing cattle, they got saved
under the 1952 Act and, therefore, it is now not open to
the appellants to contend that the subject lands are not
capable of being used for agricultural purpose."
E
62. In fact our conclusion on this aspect in the earlier part
of our judgment is in tune with what has been propounded by
this Court in the said paragraph. The learned senior counsel
for the respondent contended that the said decision cannot be
applied to the facts of this case. The submission of the learned F
counsel was twofold. According to him, the said decision came
to be rendered in the light of the definition of 'Bid land' which
came to be introduced for the first time after the coming into
force of the Amendment Act of 1974 and, therefore, whatever
decided in the said decision was exclusively in the context of G
the Amendment Act of 1974 which cannot be applied to the
case on hand. The second submission of the learned senior
counsel was that in the said decision the implication of the Act,
1976 was not considered and, therefore, whatever said in the
said decision was applicable only to the facts involved in that H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A case and can have no universal application. To buttress the
former argument, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned counsel for
the appellants contended that though the question posted for
consideration in the said decision was in the context of the
definition of 'Bid land' as described in the Amendment Act
B 1974, this Court while holding that 'Bid land' would fall within
the definition of 'agricultural land' under the Act of 1960 also
examined the issue as to what is a 'Bid land' under the 1952
Act independent of the definition of 'Bid land' introduced in the
Amendment Act 1974. The learned senior counsel by drawing
c our attention to paragraph 20 of the said decision contended
that the said independent consideration of what is a 'Bid land'
was an added reason to hold that the said kind ofland would
also fall within the definition of 'agricultural land' as defined in
Section 2( 1) of the Act of 1960.
D 63. Having considered the respective submissions, we find
force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the
appellants. A close reading of paragraph 20 is clear to the
pointer that irrespective of the definition of 'Bid land' .under the
Amendment Act 1974, having regard to the definition of 'Bid
E land' under Act Ill of 1952, such land would fall within the
definition of 'Agricultural Land' as defined in Section 2(1) of the
Act of 1960. This Court in fact made it very clear in its
perception while stating the said position by holding that it was
an added reason for holding that the Land Ceiling Act, as
F amended, applied to 'Bid land'. One more reason which this
Court mentioned was that the land in question survived
acquisition under the 1952 Act only because they were 'Bid
lands' which, by virtue of its character was being used by
Girasdars for grazing by cattle and thereby stood excluded from
G acquisition. Therefore, when this Court examined the character
of the 'Bid land' which was used for grazing purpose as one
falling within the definition of 'agriculture land' even without the
implication of the Amendment Act of 1974, the reliance placed
upon the said decision merits acceptance. The said submission
H of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is supported
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 565
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
by the decisions in London Jewellers (supra), Jacobs (supra), A
Behrens (supra) and Smt.Somawanti (supra). In the decision
in London Jewellers (supra), it has been held as under:
"........ /cannot help feeling that if we were unhampered
by authority there is much to be said for this proposition
which commended itself to Swift J. and which 8
commended itself to me in Folkes v. King, but that view
is not open to us in view of the decision of the Coult of
Appeal in Folkes v King. In that case two reasons were
given by all the members of the Coult of Appeal for their
decision and we are not entitled to pick out the first reason C
as the ratio decidendi and neglect the second, or to pick
out the second reason as the ratio decidendi and neglect
the first: we must take both as forming the ground of the
;udgment."
D
(Emphasis added)
64. The ratio of the said decision was followed in Jacobs
(supra). In ths decision in Behrens (supra), it has been held as
under:
E
"........ This question depends, I think, on the language
used by Cozens-Hardy, M.R. It is well established that. if
a judge gives two reasons for his decision, both are
binding. It is not permissible to pick out one as being
supposedly the better reason and ignore the other one: F
nor does it matter for this pumose which comes first and
which comes second. The practice of making judicial
observations obiter is a/so well established. A judge may
often give additional reasons for his decision without
wishing to make them palt of the ratio decidendi; he may G
not be sufficiently convinced of their cogency as to want
them to have the full authority of precedent, and yet may
wish to state them so that those who later may have the
duty of investigating the same point will stalt with some
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 11 S.C.R.
A guidance. This is a matter which the judge himself is
alone capable of deciding and any judge who comes after
him must ascertain which course has been adopted from
the language used and not by consulting his own
preference."
B
{Emphasis added)
65. The proposition of law has thus been so lucidly
expressed in the above decisions, it will have to be held that
the additional reasons adduced in our decision in Nagbhai
C Najbhai Khackar (supra) directly covers the issue raised before
us. One more reason, which weighed with this Court for holding
that 'Bid land" falls within the definition of 'Agriculture Land' as
defined under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1960 is binding and
thus there is no scope to exclude the said decision from its
D application. Therefore, we reiterate that merely because the
question posed for consideration related to the character of 'Bid
lands' after the 1974 amendment what has been held in
paragraphs 20 and 21 mutantis mutandis is in tune with what
has now been held by us based on the definition of 'agriculture'
E as well as 'land' under Sections 2(1) and 2(17) of the un-
amended Act of 1960 itself.
66. As far as the next submission is concerned, the
argument raised was that the said decision never dealt with the
issue which has been presently raised in this appeal, namely,
F the implication of the Act, 1976 which came into force on
17.02.1976 while the Amendment Act of 1974 was brought into
force subsequently i.e. on and after 01.04.1976 and, therefore,
the said decision can have no application to the facts of this
case. In so far as the said contention is concerned, the same
G is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the said decision is for the
simple proposition as to how a land where grass is raised or
used for grazing purposes is to be included under the definition
of 'agriculture' and consequently within the definition of 'land' as
provided under Sections 2(1) and 2(17) of the Act of 1960.
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 567
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Therefore, non-consideration of the implication of Act, 1976 in A
the said decision does not in any way deter us from relying upon
the ratio laid down in the said decision to support our
conclusion.
67. The next submission of learned counsel for the 8
respondent related to the supervening effect of the Act, 1976
in the State of Gujarat on and after 17.02.1976 which according
to learned senior counsel has made the Act of 1974 a 'still born
child' and also the submission that after the coming into force
of the Act, 1976 there was no authority in the respondent to C
invoke the 1960 Act in order to acquire the lands of the
respondent. As we have refrained from relying upon the
Amended Act of 1974 while approving the action of the
appellant in seeking to proceed against the respondent for
acquiring the surplus lands of the respondent under the Act of
1960, we do not find any dire necessity to deal with the said D
contention in extenso. The formidable submission raised on
behalf of the respondent related to the supremacy of the Act,
1976 over the 1960 Act. The learned counsel pointed out that
the respondent filed its return under the provisions of the Act,
1976 on 13.08.1976, that the said return was considered by E
the competent authorii)' by passing its Order dated 21.05.1983
which was thereafter considered by the Tribunal in its order
dated 08.09.1989 and that the appellanVState while dealing
with the respondent and the Act, 1976 themselves have
mentioned in the reply affidavit in paragraph 4.1 that the lands F
in Survey No.111 /2-3 situated in Madhopur village was
reserved for site and service project meaning thereby that they
were not agricultural lands. The learned counsel would,
therefore, contend that while on the one hand when it came to
the question of determining the surplus lands under the G
provisions of the Act, 1976 the appellant would contend that the
lands held by the respondent were not classified as agricultural
land and thereby not entitled for exclusion under the said Act,
when it came to the question of applicability of 1960 Act they
contend that such lands are to be treated as agricultural lands. H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A 68. We do not find any such contradiction in the stand of
the appellant even in the reply affidavit. At page 5 of the reply
affidavit while referring to the lands in Survey No.111/2-3 of
Madhopur village it is specifically mentioned that those lands
are 'Bid lands' and are located within the industrial development
B industrial area. What was contended was that admittedly no
agricultural operation was being carried out in respect of
Survey No.111/2-3 along with Survey Nos.91/3 and 129. In this
respect it will also be necessary to refer to the stand of the
respondent himself in his appeal filed under Section 33 of the
c Act, 1976. In paragraphs 9 and 10 the appellant claimed the
character of the land in the following manner:
"9. Land admeasuring 30 acres and 30 Gunthas i.e.
1,24,412 sq. mts., of suNey No.11112 of village Madhopur
is a vidi land of the Appellant and that has been brought
D
under the recreational zone of RUDA. That should not
have been included in the holding of the Appell,1nt. Here
a/so the application under section 20 is pending with the
Government for exemption.
E 10. SuNev No.11113 of village Madhopur admeasuring
579 acres 27 Gunthas is falling in agricultural zone of
RUDA. A certificate has been produced before the
Competent Authority and this should not be included in
the holding of the Appel/ant. The Competent Authority has
F shown Appellant's flat in Bombay admeasuring 223 sq.
mts. From the records the Bombay flat was shown as
575.06 sq. mts., being built up property it should not be
declared as surplus. Of course the flat is situated in
Bombay it should be calculated as 1725. 18 sq. mts."
G
(underlining is ours)
69. In paragraph 9 respondent has referred to the land
admeasuring 30 acres and 30 Gunthas i.e. 1,24,412 sq. mts.
in survey No.11112 of village Madhopur as vidi land which was
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 569
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
brought under the recreational zone of RUDA and, therefore, A
those lands should not have been included in the holding of the
appellant. As far as the land admeasuring 579 acres 27
Gunthas in the very same village Madhopur in survey No.111/
3 is concerned, it was specifically claimed that those lands fell
in the 'AGRICULTURAL ZONE' of RUDA and, therefore, it B
should not have been brought within the category of excess
lands held by the respondent. In fact, the above submission
made on behalf of the appellant far from supporting the stand
of the respondent fully supports the stand of the appellant. We,
therefore, do not find any conflict in the stand of the appellant c
while dealing with the nature of land held by the respondent
which was earlier dealt with under the Act of 1960 which came
to be considered by the authorities under the Act, 1976
pursuant to the return submitted by the respondent on
13.08.1976 under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976.
D
70. When we consider the submission of the learned
senior counsel for the respondent pertaining to the implication
of the Act, 1976 vis-a-vis Act of 1960, the submission was
again two fold. In the first place, it was contended that as the
entire lands were lying within the urban agglomeration of the E
scheduled area viz., Rajkot, the Act, 1976 would alone govern
the subject land and thereby exclude the application of the Act
of 1960. Though in the first blush, the argument appears to be
appealing, on a deeper scrutiny, it will have to be held that the
said submission cannot be accepted. Even according to the F
respondent, the subject land having been classified as
'agricultural land' stood excluded from the application of the
provisions of the Act, 1976 though lying within the urban
agglomeration area. It was, therefore, axiomatic that de hors
the implication of the provision of the Act, 1976 by virtue of the G
character of the Land held by the respondent, the application
of the Act of 1960, as it originally stood prior to 17.2.1976 was
imperative. Such a legal consequence existed. Even accepting
the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the respondent,
that being agricultural land lying within the urban agglomeration, H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A the application of the Act, 1976 stood excluded, we fail to see
as to how there would be any scope at all for the respondent
to contend on that score the application of the Act of 1960
should also be excluded. Therefore, taking note of the
categorical stand of the respondent himself, having claimed
B exclusion of such of those lands which were classified as
'agricultural land', which included 'Bid land' as well, to be
excluded from the application of the provisions of the Act, 1976
and thereby the authorit~s' competent under the provisions of
such other enactments\vhich would govern such agricultural
C lands would be free to exercise their powers under these
enactments. The respondent cannot be heard to contend that
there would be a vacuu'rh in so far as the application of any
Statute over the lands held by the respondent that have been
classified as 'agricultural land'. Such a proposition, expounded
on behalf of the appellants can never be countenanced.
D Therefore, the legal position that would emerge would be that
going by the stand of the respondent, his lands to an extent of
579 acres 27 Gunthas being 'agricultural land' if stood excluded
from the application of the provisions of the Act, 1976 such
lands were already governed by the provisions of the Act of
E 1960 as it originally stood and applied and there can be no
demur to it.
71. On this aspect, the next submission of the learned
senior counsel for the respondent was that since the Act, 1976
F having been passed by the Parliament, at the instance of the
appellant State which came into effect from 17.02.1976, no
other law on the said subject viz, 'land' would operate in the
field. The sum and substance of the submission was that having
regard to the emergence of the Act, 1976 on and from
G 17 .02.1976, the application of the Act of 1960 would
automatically cease to operate. To some extent, we appreciate
the submission in so far as it related to the implementation of
the Act of 1974 by which the amendment was introduced to the
Act of 1960. In that -respect, we consider the invocation of
H Article 252 of the Constitution wherein Sub-clause (2)
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 571
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
specifically stipulated that in future, amendments could be A
carried out only by the Parliament and not by the State. Here
we are concerned with the Act of 1960 in its un-amended form
which was holding the field insofar as it related to the
agricultural lands. We do find some logic to accede to the
contention of the learned senior counsel in regard to the B
application of 1974 Act after the emergence of the Act, 1976
but same is not the position in relation to the un-amended Act
of 1960. In the first place, such an argument does not find
support by the specific embargo contained in Article 252(2) of
the Constitution. Going by the specific stipulation contained in C
Article 252 (2) of the Constitution, such an extended meaning
cannot be imported into the said provision in order to nullify the
effect and operation of the un-amended Act of 1960 in so far
as it related to 'agricultural lands' in the appellant State. We,
therefore, hold that the Act of 1960 in its un-amended form o
applied on its own and continue to hold the field and was in
operation over the 'agricultural lands' over which the implication
of the Act, 1976 had no effect. The said legal position has to
be necessarily understood in the said manner and cannot be
stated in any other manner, much less in the manner contended E
on behalf of the respondent. Thus the said contention made on
behalf of the respondent, therefore, stands rejected.
72. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed
upon a decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Valluri
Basavaiah Chowdhary & Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 324. F
Having bestowed our serious consideration in the reliance
placed upon the said decision, we find that the said decision
has no application to the legal issues involved in the case on
hand. That was a case where in regard to the passing of the
Act, 1976 itself, based on the resolution passed by the Andhra G
Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 08.04.1972. The challenge
was made to the vires of the Act in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The ground raised was that the Parliament lacked
legislative competence. Such lack of competence was raised
on two grounds. In the first place, it was contended that the H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Governor of Andhra Pradesh did not participate in the process
of authorization in the passing of the Act by the Parliament and
the second ground was that the resolution of the State
Legislature gave authorization to the imposition of ceiling on
the basis of the valuation of the immovable property i.e. for
B ceiling on ownership on immovable property and not on the
area of land. It was contended that the ultimate act in imposing
ceiling on the area of the land was not in conformity with the
real intendment of the resolution of the State and therefore it
lacked competence. On the first ground viz., due to the non
c participation of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, the Parliament
lacked competence found favour with the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh which struck down the Act on that ground itself. While
dealing with the said ground, this Court dealt with the scope of
Article 252 (1) & (2) of the Constitution and by relying upon the
earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar Vs. Sir
0
Kameshwar Singh reported in AIR 1952 SC 252, ruled that in
the passing of the resolution of the State Legislature, the
Governor nowhere comes in the picture.
73. As far as the second contention was concerned, it was
E held as under in Va/furl Basavaiah Chowdhary (supra) at
paragraphs 28, 31 and 32.
"28. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted.
It is not disputed that the subject-matter of Entry 18, List
F II of the Seventh Schedule, i.e. 'land' covers 'land and
building' and would, therefore, necessarily include 'vacant
land'. The expression 'urban immovable property' may
mean 'land and buildings'. or 'buildings' or 'land'. It would
take in lands of every description, i.e., agricultural land,
urban land or any other kind and it necessarily includes
G
vacant land.
• *.
31. It is bvt axiomatic that once the legislatures of two or
H more States, by a resolution in terms of Article 252(1),
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 573
JADE.IA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUUA, J.]
abdicate or surrender the area, i.e., their power of A
legislation on a State subject, the Parliament is
competent to make a law relating to the subject. It would
indeed be contrary to the terms of Article 252 (1) to read
the resolution passed by the State legislature subject to
any restriction. The resolution, contemplated under B
Article 252(1) is not hedged in with conditions. In making
such a law, the Parliament was not bound to exhaust the
whole field of legislation. It could make a law, like the
present Act, with respect to ceiling on vacant land in an
urban agglomeration, as a first step towards the eventual c
imposition of ceiling on immovable property of every
other description.
32. There is no need to dilate on the question any further
in this judgment, as it can be better dealt with separately,
It is sufficient for purposes of these appeals to say tbat 0
when Parliament was invested with the power to legislate
on the subject, i.e. 'ceiling on immovable property', it was
competent for the Parliament to enact the impugned Act
i.e., a law relating to 'ceiling on urban land'.•
E
74. Whatever stated in Paragraph 28 can only be
understood to mean that when the State Legislature authorizes
· the Parliament to pass a legislation in respect of the subject
matter of Entry 18, List II of the Seventh Schedule, i.e. 'land' it
would cover 'land and building' and would necessarily include F
'vacant land' and would take in land of every description
including 'agriculture land' or any other kind of land. It also went
on to hold that the resolution passed by the State Legislature
cannot be said to impose any restriction as it would be contrary
to the terms of Article 252 (1) of the Constitution. It was further G
held that the Parliament was empowered to enact the law
pursuant to the surrender of the State to enact a law with said
subject by formulating its own prescription as to the nature of
urban land in different stages. Beyond that, we do not find any
other statement of iaw propounded in the said decision. H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Applying the said legal principle, it can only be held that the Act,
1976 in having imposed a restriction by way of ceiling on urban
land within the urban agglomeration by excluding agricultural
land it was a valid piece of legislation. In this respect, the
contention of Mr. Soli J. Sorabji that the State Legislature only
B intended in its authorization to bring about a legislation only on
'urban immovable land' and not on any agriculture land is quite
appealing. We can also state that in paragraph 32 of the said
decision, this Court consciously decided not to dilate on the
question any further in that judgment as it can be better dealt
c with separately at a later point of time. We now hold that the
situation has now come where the position has to be made loud
and clear to state that the Act, 1976 would govern only such of
those lands which would fall within its area of operation within
urban agglomeration to the specific exclusion of the agriculture
0 lands and consequently the continued application of the un-
amended Act of 1960 remain without any restriction.
75. On the other hand Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned
senior counsel' for the appellants placed reliance upon a
Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in Thumati
E Venkaiah (supra). Almost an identical situation was dealt with
by this Court in the said decision. That case also arose from
the State of Andhra Pradesh. To briefly refer to the facts, in the
State of Andhra Pradesh a ceiling of agricultural holdings was
sought to be imposed by enacting an Ac.1 called The Andhra
F Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act
(Act 1 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Andhra Pradesh
Act'). It was enacted by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature on
01.01.1973. The Act was challenged before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh. However a Full Bench of the High Court
G negatived the challenge by its judgment dated 11.04.1973. The
Act was however brought into force on and from 01.01.1975.
The amendments were brought to the said Act by Amendment
Act of 1977 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1975. After the
amendments, again the Act was challenged on the main ground
H that by reason of enactment of the Act, 1976, the Andhra
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 575
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUUA, J.]
Pradesh Act has become void and inactive. It can be validly A
mentioned that the subsequent contention of the respondent
herein was the focal point in the said decision. Dealing with the
said contention, the Constitutional Bench has held as under in
paragraph 5:
B
"5. Now, as we have already pointed out above, the
Andhra Pradesh Legislature had, at the time when the
Andhra Pradesh Act was enacted, no power to legislate
with respect to ceiling on urban immovable property.
That power stood transferred to Parliament and as a first C
step towards the eventual imposition of ceiling on
immovable property of every other description,
Parliament enacted the Central Act with a view to
imposing ceiling on vacant land. other than land mainly
used for the purpose of agriculture. in an urban
agglomeration. The argument of the landholders was that D
the Andhra Pradesh Act sought to impose ceiling on land
in the whole of Andhra Pradesh including land situate in
urban agglomerations and since the concept of urban
agglomeration defined in Section 2(n) of the Central Act
was an expansive concept and any area with an existing E
or future population of more than one /akh could be
notified to be an urban agglomeration, the whole of the
Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra vires and void as being
outside the legislative competence of the Andhra
Pradesh Legislature. This argument, plausible though it F
may seem, is in our opinion, unsustainable. It is no doubt
true that if the Andhra Pradesh Act seeks to impose
ceiling on land falling within an urban agglomeration. it
would be outside the area of its legislative competence.
since it cannot provide for imposition of ceiling on urban G
immovable property. But the only urban agglomerations
in the State of Andhra Pradesh recognized in the Central
Act were those referred to in Section 2(n)(A)(i) and there
can be no doubt that, so far as these urban
agglomerations are concerned, it was not within the H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature to provide for imposition of ceiling on land
situate within these urban agglomerations. It is, however,
difficult to see how the Andhra Pradesh Act could be said
to be outside the legislative competence of the Andhra
B Pradesh Legislature insofar as land situate in the other
areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. We
agree that any other area in the State of Andhra Pradesh
with a population of more than one lakh could be notified
as an urban agglomeration under Section 2(n)(A)(ii) of
c the Central Act, but until it is so notified it would not be
an urban agglomeration and the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature would have legislative competence to provide
for imposition of ceiling on land situate within such area.
No sooner such area is notified to be an urban
D agglomeration, the Central Act would apply in relation to
land situate within such area, but until that happens, the
Andhra Pradesh Act would continue to be applicable to
determine the ceiling on holding of land in such area. It
may be noted that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into
force on January 1, 1975 and it was with reference to this
E
date that the surplus holding of land in excess of the
ceiling area was required to be determined and if there
was any surplus, it was to be surrendered to the State
Government. It is therefore clear that in an area other than
that comprised in the urban agglomerations referred to
F in Section 2(n)(A)(i), land held by a person in excess of
the ceiling area would be liable to be determined as on
January 1, 1975 under the Andhra Pradesh Act and only
land within the ceiling area would be allowed to remain
with him. It is only in respect of land remaining with a
G person, whether an individual or a family unit, after the
operation of the Andhra Pradesh Act, that the Central Act
would apply, if and when the area in question is notified
to be an urban agglomeration under Section 2(n)(a)(ii)
of the Central Act. We fail to see how it can at all be
H contended that merely because an area may possibly in
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSJNHJI 577
JADEJA [FAKKJR MOHAMED JBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
the future be notified as an urban agglomeration under A
Section 2(n)(A)(ii) of the Central Act, the Andhra Pradesh
Legislature would cease to have competence to legislate
with respect to ceiling on land situate in such area, even
though it was not an urban agglomeration at the date of
enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Act. Undoubtedly, B
when an area is notified as an urban agglomeration
under Section 2(n)(A)(ii), the Central Act would apply to
land situate in such area and the Andhra Pradesh Act
would cease to have ~pplication, but by that time the
Andhra Pradesh Act would have already operated to c
determine the ceiling on holding of land falling within the
definition in Section 3(j) and situate within such area. It
is, therefore, not possible to uphold the contention of the
landholders that the Andhra Pradesh Act is ultra vires
and void as being outside the legislative competence of D
the Andhra Pradesh Legislature."
(Emphasis added)
76. In the first blush, it appears as though the said decision
support the contention of the respondent. But in paragraph 5, E
we have highlighted cartain relevant conclusions which fully
support the stand of the appellants. This Court made it clear
thereunder that the Parliament enacted the Central Act with a
view to impose ceiling on vacant land other than the land mainly
used for the purpose of agriculture in an urban agglomeration. F
The arguments of the land holders that the concept of urban
agglomeration defined in Section 2(n) was an expansive
concept and any area which was already notified as urban
agglomeration, as well as, which can be notified in future based
on: the increase in population as urban agglomeration and, G
therefore, the Andhra Pradesh Act was ultra vires lacking
legislative competence was held to be unsustainable. It was
also held that the Andhra Pradesh Act seeks to impose ceiling
on land falling within the urban agglomeration, it would be
outside the area of its legislative competence as it cannot
H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A provide for imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property
after the emergence of Act, 1976. It was thus made clear that
after the coming into force of the Act, 1976 by virtue of Article
252 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, there would have been no
scope for the State Legislature to bring about a legislation for
B imposing a ceiling on an urban immovable property which falls
within the urbar '.gglomeration. It was also made clear that other
areas which were not declared as urban agglomeration came
to be subsequently declared as urban agglomeration and
notified as such, the Central Act would automatically apply and
C in relation to such notified area also, the State Legislature would
be incompetent to make any legislation by way of imposition
of ceiling on and after such declaration is made. While rererring
to such a situation, this Court made it clear that the Andhra
Pradesh Act continue to be applicable for determining the
ceiling of holding of lands in such area, prior to any such
D subsequent notification under the Act, 1976. It was further made
clear that since the Andhra Pradesh Act came into force on and
from 01.01.1975, the surplus holding of land in excess of the
ceiling area were required to be determined with reference to
that date and if there was any surplus, it was to be surrendered
E to the State Government. It was further reinforced by stating that
in an area other than that comprised in the urban
agglomeration, the land held by a person in excess of the ceiling
area would be liable to be determined as on 01.01.1975 under
the Andhra Pradesh Act and the land within the ceiling area
F alone would be allowed to remain with him.
77. The crucial words in the said paragraph can be
mentioned again in order to appreciate and understand the
legal position noted. They are:
G "It may be noted that the Andhra Pradesh Act came into
force on January 1, 1975 and it was with reference to this
date that the surplus holding of land in excess of the
ceiling area was required to be determined and if there
was any surplus, it was required to be determined and if
H there was any surplus, it was to be surrendered to the
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 579
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
State Government. It is, therefore, clear that in an area A
other than that comprised with Urban Agglomeration
referred to in Section 2(n)(A) (i), land held by a person
in excess of the ceiling area would be liable to be
determined as on January 1, 1975 under the Andhra
Pradesh Act and only Land within the ceiling area would B
be allowed to remain with him. It is only in respect of Land
remaining with a person, whether an individual or a family
unit, after the operation of the Andhra Pradesh Act, that
the Central Act would apply .... "
"Undoubtedly, when an area is notified as an urban C
agglomeration under Section 2(n)(A)(ii), the Central Act
would apply to land situate in such area and the Andhra
Pradesh Act would cease to have application, but bv that
time the Andhra Pradesh Act would have already
operated to determine the ceiling on holding of land o
falling within the definition in Section 3(j) and situate
within such area. It is therefore not possible to uphold the
contention of the landholders that the Andhra Pradesh
Act is ultra vires and void as being outside the legislative
competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature." E
(Emphasis added)
A close ancj careful reading of the said statement of Jaw
declared by this Court makes it clear that if as on the date when
the Andhra Pradesh Act was already in force i.e. as on
01.01.1975, the determination of surplus land as per the F
provisions of the said Act should have been determined and
only thereafter the implication of the Act, 1976 could be applied.
The specific statements "It is only in respect of land remaining
with a person, whether an individual or a family unit after the
operation of the Andhra Pradesh Act, that the Central Act G
would apply ..... " " ..... but by that time the Andhra Pradesh Act
would have already operated to determine the ceiling on
holding of land falling within the definition in Section 3(j) and
situate within such area ..... " makes the above position clear
without any ambiguity. H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A 78. Afortiori if the said ratio decided by the Constitution
Bench of this Court is applied, there would be no difficulty in
holding that as held by us earlier, since as per the un-amended
Act of 1960, 'Bid land' held by the respondent fell within the
definition of 'agriculture' under Section 2(1) and consequent
B definition of 'land' as defined in Section 2(17) of the Act of 1960,
the determination of holding of such excess agriculture land
under the said Act of 1960 prior to the coming into force of the
Act, 1976 should be operated upon. Having regard to the said
legal position, we hold that the action of the appellants in having
c passed the orders impugned before the High Court were fully
justified and interfering with the same by the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by the
impugned order in this Civil Appeal are liable to be set aside.
79. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the
D High Court proceeded mainly on the footing that the Amended
Act of 1974 cannot form the basis for proceeding against the
respondent for the purpose of acquisition under the 1960 Act
in the light of the field being occupied by the Act, 1976 which
came into force prior to the coming into force of the 1974 Act,
E namely, on 17.02.1976 and the Amendment Act of 1974 which
came to be notified only on 01.04.1976. The said conclusion
was based on the implication of Article 252(2) of the
Constitution ·wherein once at the instance of the "State
Government even in relation to any entry in List II an enactment
F came to be made by the Parliament, any subsequent
amendment relating to the said subject can only be made by
the Parliament and not by the State. The Division Bench
referred to the claim of the appellant that even by ignoring the
Amendment Act 1974 which came into effect from 01.04.1976
G having regard to the existence of the Act, f9'76 as from
17.02.1976, the ceiling with regard to the agricultural land has
to be determined as it was existing prior to 17.02.1976,
naniely, as agricultural land and the same being not part of
urban agglomeration the 1960 Act would apply. We find that
H the said argument was simply brushed aside. The submission
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 581
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAUFULLA, J.]
was not dealt with in the proper perspective. A
80. It was lastly contended by the learned senior counsel
for the respondent that the case of the appellants was hit by
the principle of res judicata. In support of the said submission,
reliance was placed upon the joint affidavit filed by two Deputy
Collector dated 06.10.1980, filed in a different case viz., in B
Special Civil Application No.941of1980 before the High Court
of Gujarat where on behalf of the State of Gujarat, it was
contended that in respect of 'Bid land' only Act, 1976 would
apply where such 'Bid land' lie within the agglomeration of
Bhavnagar and that Act of 1960 was not applicable. Reliance C
was also placed upon another affidavit dated 16.02.2000, filed
by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of
Gujarat in relation to Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' before the High
Court of Gujarat in S.C.A.No.15529 of 1999, wherein a stand
was taken by the State Government that possession of D
Bhavnagar 'Bid land' not having been acquired and taken under
the Act, 1976 prior to its repeal, there was no scope to take
possession of those lands. Reliance was placed upon the
decision of this Court in Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and
another Vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra)wherein, it was E
concluded by this Court that Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' were
controlled by the provisions of Act, 1976 and not by the Act of
1960. By referring to those affidavits and the decision of this
Court, the contention was that the stand taken by the appellant
in regard to the Bhavnagar 'Bid lands' would apply in all force F
to the 'Bid lands' belonging to the respondent though they were
situated in Rajkot.
81. In reply to the said submission Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee,
learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the
principle of res judicata cannot be applied as the parties were G
different and the subject lands were different and the
respondent had nothing to do with the issue raised in the
decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent. It was also submitted that since the ingredients to
support the principle of res judicata as set out under Section H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure not having been fulfilled, the
submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent
cannot be considered. The learned senior counsel for the
appellants brought to our notice the facts set out in the joint
affidavits of the two Deputy Collectors in S.C.A. No.941 of
B 1980, wherein it was specifically averred to the effect that since
long time, to the knowledge of the land holders, the land in
question was demonstrated as meant for residential purpose
in the Master Plan which was prepared since August, 1976 and
that the land in question fell within the definition of 'urban land'
c under Section 2(o) of the Act, 1976 and therefore the overriding
effect of Section 42 of the Act, 1976 excluded the application
of the Act of 1960.
82. When we refer to the facts mentioned in the joint
affidavit of the two Deputy Collector in S.C.A.No.941of1980,
D we find that the submissions of the learned senior counsel for
the appellants were clearly set out therein. The lands which were
originally classified as 'Bid lands' came to be specifically
classified as land meant for residential purpose in the Master
Plan prepared in the year August, 1976 and thereby came
E within the definition of 'urban land' under Section 2(o) of the Act,
1976. Whatever decision rendered based on those facts cannot
be equated to the facts involved in the case on hand, in order
to apply the principle of res judicata and thereby non-suit the
appellants. The principle of res judicata is governed by Section
F 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Applying the ingredients set
out in the said provision, the respondent is bound to show that
the issue which was directly and substantially involved between
the same parties in the former suit and was tried in the
subsequent suit, in order to fall within the principles of res
G judicata. Applying the substantive part of Section 11 of C.P.C.
we fail to see how any of the ingredients set out therein are
fulfilled in order to apply the principle of res judicata. The parties
are entirely different, the fact in issue as pointed out by the
learned senior counsel for the appellants would disclose that
H they were based on entirely different set of facts and
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI 583
JADEJA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUW\, J.]
circumstances and therefore we do not find any substance in A
the said submission raised on behalf of the respondent. The
said submission, therefore, stands rejected.
83. When we come to the submission relating to the
concept of eclipse in relation to the Act of 1960, as it originally B
stood as well as after the Amendment Act of 1974 by virtue of
the coming into force of the Act, 1976 w.e.f. 17.02.1976, we
wish to only touch upon the position that occurred due to the
subsequent repeal of the Act, 1976 in the year 2000. We are
conscious of the fact that we are not solely concerned with the
said issue of eclipse of the Act of 1960 and its revival after the C
repeal of the Act, 1976. However, since the said issue was
argued by the respective counsel and reliance was placed upon
a Constitution Bench decision of this Court on this issue in
M.P. V. Sundararamier (supra) we are obliged to deal with the
said submission. In the said decision among other contentions D
a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner therein which
was as under:
"Section 22 having been unconstitutional when it was
enacted and, therefore, void, no proceedings could be
taken thereunder on the basis of the Validation Act as the E
effect of unconstitutionality of the law was to efface it out
of the statute book."
Dealing with the said contention, the Constitution Bench
has held at page 1469 and 1474-75 as under: F
"..... If a law is on a field not within the domain of the
legislature, it is absolutely null and void, and a subsequent
cession of that field to the legislature will not have the effect
of breathing life into what was a still-born piece of
legislation and a fresh legislation on the subject would be G
requisite. But if the law is in respect of a matter assigned
to the legislature but its provisions disregard constitutional
prohibitions. though the law would be unenforceable by
reason of those prohibitions. when once they are remove<!.
the law will become effective without re-enactment. H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A The result of the authorities may thus be summed up:
Where an enactment is unconstitutional in part but valid as
to the rest, assuming of course that the two portions are
severable, it cannot be held to have been wiped out of the
statute book as it admittedly must remain there for the
B purpose of enforcement of the valid portion thereof, and
being on the statute book, even that portion which is
unenforceable on the ground that it is unconstitutional will
operate proprio vigore when the Constitutional bar is
removed, and there is no need for a fresh legislation to give
c effect thereto. On this view, the contention of the petitioners
with reference to the Explanation in s.22 of the Madras Act
must fail.. .. "
(emphasis added)
In the light of the said proposition of law laid down by the
D Constitution Bench decision of this Court, it will have to be held
that once the Act, 1976 came to be repealed whatever
constitutional embargo that was existing as against the Act of
1960 as well as the Amendment Act of 1974 ceased to exist
and the Act would operate in full force. In the light of the said
E settled legal position, we need not dilate much on this issue
and we leave it at that.
84. Having regard to our above conclusions, the judgment
impugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside. The appeal,
F therefore, stands allowed. The order of the learned Single
Judge as well as the impugned judgment of the Division Bench
are set aside. The judgment dated 08.09.1989 passed by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application
No.TEN.B.R.4/84 confirming the orders of the Deputy Collector
G and Mamlatdar and A.LT in so far as Bid lands in survey
No.111/2 admeasuring 30 acres 30 Gunthas and survey
No.111/3 admeasuring 579 acres 27 Gunthas stands restored.
In the facts and circumstances of the case where we have dealt
with pure questions of law there will be no order as to costs.
H R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bid land"Sign in to search