Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

We may now read some of the provisions of the impugned Act, 1958. The Act is entitled "an Act further to define permanent tenants, inferior holders and permanent holders for the purposes of certain Land Tenure Abolition laws and to provide for certain other matters." In view of the argument advanced before us on behalf of the respondents that the impugned Act, 1958 merely changes a rule of evidence, it is worthly of note that the long title itself states that the Act is an Act further to define permanent tenants. Section 2 of the Act is the interpretation section and the expression 'Land Tenure Abolition law' means in relation to a permanent tenant, Acts specified in Part I of the Schedule. The Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949 is one of the Acts mentioned in Part I of the Schedule. The expression 'tenure- holder' means inter alia a taluqdar and 'tenure- land' means inter alia taluqdari land. Sections 3, 4 are 6 and important for our purpose and should be read in full.

It has been contended before us that while implementing the provisions of s. 5A of the Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949, it was found that because of the failure or inability of the ex- Taluqdar to produce old records concerning the tenants it was difficult for the tenants to take the benefit of that provision; therefore, it became necessary for the Legislature to define permanent tenant in such a way that the tenure- holder might not defeat the provisions of s. 5A. That it was stated, was the reason for enacting ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the impugned Act, 1958. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. If the reason was as stated above, then the tenure-holder should have been given a chance to contest the claim of the tenant whenever he made a claim of being a permanent tenant. It appears to us that the true scope and effect of the provisions in ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the impugned Act, 1958 is to considerably reduce the purchase price payable to the petitioners and this has been secured by the device of defining permanent tenant in such a way that the tenure-holder has no real opportunity of contesting the claim of the tenants. In that view of the matter, the impugned Act, 1958, does not fall within any entry of List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and is a piece of colourable legislation. What is colourable legislation was explained by this Court in K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State of Orissa (1). This Court said that the idea conveyed by the expression "colourable legislation" is that although apparently a legislature in passing a statute purported to within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality it transgressed those powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be a mere pretence or disguise. We are of the view that, that is what has happened in the present case. Under the guise of defining a permanent tenant or changing a rule of evidence what has been done is to reduce the purchase price which became payable to the tenure-holders on April 1, 1957.

444

It was accepted before us that the period fixed by s. 5A has been extended upto the year 1962. Section 5A of the Act has never been challenged, and the argument before us proceeded upon the footing that it is a perfectly valid piece of law.

Though the Abolition Act by s. 5A thus conferred upon the permanent tenants in the taluqdari villages the right become occupants, it did not define what a permanent tenant was. By an amendment made by Bombay Act XVIII of 1958, it was provided that certain persons would be permanent tenants but that does not really define what a permanent tenant is. This absence of definition of a permanent tenant did not, however, create any difficulty because in Bombay that term has been understood to mean the tenant described in paragraph 2 of s. 83 of the Code. Indeed, in the petitions themselves it is stated that s.83 of the Code defines a permanent tenant. The second paragraph of that section is in these terms:

What has just been stated is amply borne out by the terms of s. 6, for it enacts that the rights of a permanent tenant under s. 4 "shall be entered in the record of rights unless the tenure- holder applies in writing to the Mamlatdar within six months from the commencement of the Act of a declaration that the tenant under him is not a permanent tenant" (to quote only the material words). It will therefore be seen that the concept of permanent tenant as envisaged under s. 4 is incorporated into the texture of s. 6. Every person who satisfies the definition of a permanent tenant under s. 4 is therefore automatically entitled without application by him, to be entered in the revenue records as a permanent tenant by the Mamlatdar unless the tenure-holder applies in writing objecting to the entry. Obviously the objections which he could raise and which would be the subject of adjudication under s. 6 are those set out as being open to him under s. 4. In this connection it has to be noticed that s. 6 does not specify the grounds upon which the tenure-holder might object to a tenant being treated as a permanent tenant and it is on the absence of those provisions that the learned Solicitor-General bases his argument suggesting that the objections of the tenure-holder would extend to disproving that the tenant was a permanent tenant under s. 83 of the Code. It is not possible to accede to this submission. It is common ground that no enquiry is contemplated under s. 4(b) and that the right of the tenure-holder to object to the entry of the tenant as a permanent tenant is by taking advantage of the provision in s. 6. It would therefore follow that s. 4(b) and s. 6 are integrated provisions, the one laying down the grounds of objection open to the tenure-holder, and s. 6 making provision for the forum in which and the procedure by which such objections could be urged. To put the matter slightly differently s. 4(b) specifies the grounds of objection open to a tenure-holder but does not indicate where and in which proceeding the objections could be raised- while s. 6 indicates that the authority to decide is the Mamlatdar and that the proceeding would be initiated by an objection petition filed by the tenure-holder. Both s. 4(b) and s. 6 would be truncated unless they were read as forming an integrated whole. It is in this manner that a reconciliation is possible between the terms of ss. 4 and 6 which so to speak form together provision for determining, after investigation. the class of persons who shall be entitled to claim rights as permanent tenants. Section 4 having defined a permanent tenant in positive terms, s. 6 steps in and sets up a procedure and creates a forum in which that positive provision might be tested and if not displaced would be given effect to. In the view I have expressed the reference to the enquiry being under s. 135D of the Code would not make any difference, because the officials and Tribunals or Courts vested with authority under s. 135D of the Code and the related provisions would have still to consider whether the tenant had or had not qualified to be a permanent tenant by the application of the criteria enacted by s. 6. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that the entire object and purpose of the impugned enactment which is given effect to by its operative provisions enacts not a rule of evidence for determining who permanent tenants are under the pre-existing law, but to define, create and as it were, add a new class of "permanent tenants", i.e., those who satisfy the requirements of s. 4.