Bombay High Court
Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2013
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, R.V. Ghuge
writ2828.07 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION No. 2828 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3694 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No. 2828 OF 2007
1. Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union,
'Shramik', Tilak Road,
Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar,
Through General Secretary.
2. Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Sabha,
At & Post : Sakarwadi,
Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
3. Sakhar Kamgar Union,
At & Post : Raghunathnagar,
Trade Union Centre,
Kotwalpura, Aurangabad.
4. Sakhar Kamgar Sabha,
Shrirampur, Kamgar Sadan,
Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar.
5. Sakhar Kamgar Union,
Kolhapur, 1289-C, Laxmipuri,
Kolhapur, District : Kolhapur.
6. Malshiras Taluka Rashtriya Sakhar
Kamgar Sangh,
At & Post : Shripur,
Taluka : Malshiras,
District : Sholapur.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 2
7. Malegaon Taluka Rashtriya Sugar
Workers' Union,
At & Post : Rawalgaon,
Taluka : Malegaon,
District : Nashik.
8. Phaltan Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union,
At & Post : Sakharwadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
9. Sugar Workers Union,
Walchandnagar, Taluka : Indapur,
District : Pune.
ig .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Maharashtra State Farming
Corporation Limited,
270, Bhamburda,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Pune - 411 016. .. Respondent nos.1 & 2.
3. Bhausaheb s/o. Nana Katore,
Age : 70 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimgaon Korale,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 3
4. Balasaheb s/o. Janardan Jape,
Age : 46 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. At Savali Vihir Bk.,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
5. Jayant s/o. Atmaram Joshi,
Age : 44 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. At Kopergaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
6. Machindra s/o. Savleram Teke,
Age : 44 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Vari, Taluka : Kopergaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
7. Deoram s/o. Bandu Pawar,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Kankoli, Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
8. Sambhaji s/o. Gopal Agwan,
Age : 58 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. At Sanwastar,
Taluka : Kopergaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
9. Raju s/o. Parsharam Aglave,
Age : 46 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Savali Vihir Bk.,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 4
10. Omesh s/o. Sahebrao Jape,
Age : 41 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Savali Vihir Bk.,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar. .. Intervenors/Respondents
(Respondent nos.3 to 10 added as intervenors/
respondents as per Court's order dated
4th October 2012, in Civil Application
No.6904 of 2012, in Writ Petition
No.2828 of 2007).
11. Gangadhar Bhivaji Chaudhary,
Age : 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Jalgaon, Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
12. Raosaheb Narayan Kakade,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Loni Vyankanath,
Taluka : Shrigonda,
District : Ahmednagar.
13. Karhari Yadavrao Thorat,
Age : 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ukkalgaon,
Taluka : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 5
14. Bhausaheb Sadashiv Patil,
Age : 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Dahigaon,
Taluka : Malshiras,
District : Solapur.
15. Laxman Babasaheb Naik Nimbalkar,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. : At & Post : Sakharwadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
16. Jaikumar Sampatrao Ranware,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. : Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
17. Kisanrao Dadasaheb Dhinde,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Khambgaon, Sat Sarkal,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
18. Vijay Sakharam Bhosale,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. 213, Kasba Peth,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 6
19. Haridas Parvati Roopnawar,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Roopanwar Vasti, Jinti,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
20. Jagganath Dattarya Dhumal,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Hol Sarkal,
At & Post : Sakharwadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
21. Lalsaheb Jagadeorao Phadtare,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Phadtarewadei,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
22. Suresh Ramnarayan Khatod,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Niwara Housing Society,
Canal Road, Shrirampur,
Taluka : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
23. Trianmbak Dhondiram Kurhe,
Age : 72 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Kesapur,
Taluka : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 7
24. Anil Rajaram Shiralkar,
Age : 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Dahigaon,
Taluka : Malshiras, .. Intervenor /
District : Solapur. Respondents
(Respondent nos.11 to 24 added as intervenor/
respondent as per Court's order dated
4th October 2012, in Civil Application
No. 7549 of 2012, in Writ Petition
No. 2828 of 2007)
ig .........................
Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, with
Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate, with
Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. D.J. Khambata, Advocate General of Maharashtra,
with Mr. Rohan Cama, Assistant Advocate General of
Maharashtra, with
Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader, with
Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent no.1.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate, instructed by
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 3 to 24 / Intervenors.
..........................
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 8
WRIT PETITION No. 3694 OF 2012
1. Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar
Union, Shramik Tilak Road,
Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar.
2. Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar
Sabha, At & post : Sakarwadi,
Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar,
Through its Secretary.
3. Sakhar Kamgar Union,
At & Post : Raghunathnagar,
Trade Union Centre,
Kotwalpura, Aurangabad.
4. Sakhar Kamgar Sabha,
Shrirampur, Kamgar Sadan,
Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar.
5. Sakhar Kamgar Union,
Kolhapur, 1289-C, Laxmipuri,
Kolhapur, District : Kolhapur.
6. Malshiras Taluka Rashtriya Sakhar
Kamgar Sangh,
At & Post : Shripur,
Taluka : Malshiras,
District : Solapur.
7. Malegaon Taluka Rashtriya Sugar
Workers Union,
At & Post : Rawalgaon,
Taluka : Malegaon,
District : Nashik.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 9
8. Phaltan Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union,
At & Post : Sakharwadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
9. Sugar Workers Union,
Walchandnagar, Taluka : Indapur,
District : Pune. .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Maharashtra State Farming
Corporation Limited,
270, Bhamburda,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Pune - 411 016. .. Respondent nos.1 & 2.
3. Shri V.J. Kajale,
Age : 63 years,
Occupation : Legal Practitioner,
R/o. Kopargaon,
Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
4. Sau. Indubai Madhav Lasure,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Sanwatsar,
Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
At present Laxminagar,
Near Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 10
5. Javanlal Jugraj Shrishrimal,
Age : 75 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Wari, Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar,
At present Main Road, Yeola,
Taluka : Yeola, District : Nashik.
6. Babasaheb Yashwant Kadekar,
Age : 25 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Kanhegaon,
Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar. ig
7. Rajendra Changdeo Sangle,
Age : 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Kajale, Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
8. Premshankar Radhakishan Misal, .. Respondent nos.3 to 8
Age : 75 years, added as per Court's
Occupation : Agriculture, order dated
R/o. 1093, Misal Galli, 4/10/2012
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. in C.A. No.
6952/2012.
9. Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya
Prasarak Samaj, .. Respondent no.9
Laltaki Road, Ahmednagar, added as per Court's
Through its Secretary, order dated
Shri Genuji Dagdoji Khandeshe, 4/10/2012, in
Age : 74 years, C.A. No.6953/2012
Occupation : Social Work,
R/o. "Charusheela", Agarkar Mala,
Ahmednagar, Dist. : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 11
10. Bhausaheb s/o. Nana Katore,
Age : 70 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimgaon Korale,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
11. Balasaheb s/o. Janardhan Jape,
Age : 46 years,
R/o. At Savali Vihir Bk,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
12. Jayant s/o. Atmaram Joshi,
Age : 44 years,
R/o. At Kopergaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
13. Machindra s/o. Savleram Teke,
Age : 44 years,
R/o. Vari, Taluka : Kopergaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
14. Deoram s/o. Bandu Pawar,
Age : 60 years,
R/o. Kankoli, Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
15. Sambhaji s/o. Gopal Agwan,
Age : 58 years,
R/o. at Sanwatsar,
Taluka : Kopergaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 12
16. Raju s/o. Parsharam Aglave,
Age : 46 years,
R/o. Savali Vihir Bk.,
Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
17. Omesh s/o. Sahebrao Jape, .. Respondent nos.10 to
Age : 41 years, 17 added as per
R/o. Savali Vihir Bk., Court's order dated
Taluka : Rahata, 4/10/2012 in
District : Ahmednagar. C.A.No. 6954/2012.
18. Madhavrao Bhayyaji Gaikwad,
Age : 89 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Shivajinagar, Manmad,
District : Nashik.
19. Trianmbak Dhondiram Kurhe,
Age : 72 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Kesapur,
Taluka : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
20. Gangadhar Bhivaji Chaudhary,
Age : 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Jalgaon, Taluka : Rahata,
District : Ahmednagar.
21. Nilesh Vishwanath Baviskar,
Age : 36 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Dabhadi, Taluka : Malegaon,
District : Nashik.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 13
22. Raosaheb Narayan Kakade,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Loni, Vyankatesh,
Taluka : Shrigonda,
District : Ahmednagar.
23. Pandurang Madhukar Khatke,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Borgaon,
Taluka : Malshiras,
District : Solapur.
24. Ashok Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Kallamb, Taluka : Indapur,
District : Pune.
25. Karhari Yadavrao Thorat,
Age : 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ukkalgaon,
Taluka : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
26. Anil Rajaram Shiralkar,
Age : 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Dahigaon,
Taluka : Malshiras,
District : Solapur.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 14
27. Bhausaheb Sadashiv Patil,
Age : 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Dahigaon,
Taluka : Malshiras,
District : Solapur.
28. Laxman Babasaheb Naiknimbalkar,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. At & Post : Sakharwadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
29. Jaikumar Sampatrao Ranware,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
30. Disanrao Dadasaheb Dhinde,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Khambgaon, Sat. Sarkal,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
31. Vijay Sakharam Bhosale,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. 213, Kasba Peth,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 15
32. Haridas Parvati Roopnawar,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Roopnawar Vasati, Jinti,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
33. Jagganath Dattraya Dhumal,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Hol Sarkul,
At & Post : Sakharwadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
34. Lalasaheb Jagadeorao Phadtare,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Phadtarewadi,
Taluka : Phaltan,
District : Satara.
35. Suresh Ramnarayan Khatod, .. Respondent nos.18 to
Age : Major, 35 added as per
Occupation : Agriculture, Court's order dated
R/o. Niwara Housing Society, 4/10/2012 in
Canal Road, Shrirampur, C.A. No.6957/2012.
Taluka :Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
36. Shri Vijayrao s/o. Baburao Katore,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Nimgaon Korhale,
Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 16
37. Smt. Putalabai w/o. Indrabhan Bora, .. Respondent nos.36 &
Age : 88 years, 37 added as per
Occupation : Nil, Court's order dated
Through her General power of Attorney 4/10/2012 in C.A.
Holder Shri Abhay s/o. Indrabhan Bora, No. 8134/2012.
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Business & Agriculture,
R/o. Bungalow No.2,
Viraj Vaibhav Residency,
Vedant Nagar, Railway Station Road,
Aurangabad.
38. Gangadhar Balaji Bankar,
Age : 80 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
39. Bhausaheb Jyotiba Kandalkar,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
both R/o. Padhegaon,
Taluka : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar.
40. Shivaji Ramnath Wable,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
41. Balasaheb Shankar Wable, .. Respondent nos.38 to
Age : 55 years, 41 added as per
Occupation : Agriculture, Court's order dated
4/10/2012
both R/o. Belapur, Taluka : Rahata, in C.A.No
District : Ahmednagar. 8135/2012..
.. Respondent nos.3 to
41 / Intervenors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 17
.........................
Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate, with
Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. D.J. Khambata, Advocate General of Maharashtra,
with Mr. Rohan Cama, Assistant Advocate General of
Maharashtra, with
Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader, with
Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent no.1.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, with
Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 to 9 /
Intervenors.
Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate, instructed by
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent
nos.10 to 35 / Intervenors.
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for respondent
nos.36 and 37 / Intervenors.
Mr. R.A. Tambe, Advocate, for respondent
nos.38 to 41 / Intervenors.
.........................
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:51 :::
writ2828.07 18
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Date of reserving the
judgment : 9th October 2013.
Date of pronouncing the
judgment : 10th December 2013
JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :
1.
Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties.
2. Writ Petition No. 3694 of 2012 is filed by nine Trade
Unions of workers claiming to represent 15,000 workers who work
on land of respondent no.2 - Maharashtra State Farming Corporation
Ltd. It is claimed that these workers are earning their livelihood
since last three generations on these lands. Their prayer is to
declare Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006 published in Maharashtra
Government Gazette on 17-4-2006, Ordinance No. III of 2006,
published on 17-2-2006, as unconstitutional. Petition has been filed
on 11-4-2012 and amended on 4-5-2012 to incorporate challenge to
Maharashtra Act No. I of 2012.
3. Writ Petition No. 2828 of 2007 is filed by very same
Trade Unions and challenge therein is to Ordinance No.1 of 2006
and consequential Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006. This petition
filed on 22-9-2006, has not been amended thereafter.
4. This Court has on 4th October 2012, passed orders on
Civil Application No. 6951 of 2012 (in Writ Petition No. 3694 of
2012) and on Civil Application No. 7015 of 2012 (in Writ Petition
No. 2828 of 2007). The Division Bench after prima facie holding
that impugned amendments do not extinguish or modify rights
contemplated under Article 31A of the Constitution of India, refused
to continue interim relief and rejected Civil Applications. Civil
Application No. 12976 of 2012 and Civil Application No. 12979 of
2012 were filed in these petitions, again seeking appropriate interim
relief. Said Division Bench while rejecting these Applications vide
order dated 6-11-2012, noted that orders earlier passed on 4th
October 2012, were questioned in Special Leave Petition No. 31882
of 2012 and 31883 of 2012, and Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the
same. The Division Bench concluded that the interest of workers
primarily lay in continuation of their employment. In this
background, it felt that only relevant question was whether purpose
of filing petitions would get frustrated if petition was not heard
expeditiously. It found that doctrine of lis pendens protected the
petitioners. Contention that legal heirs of original lessors could not
have applied for return of land, was found misconceived in the light
of definition of "family" contained in Section 2(22) of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 [For
short "1961 Act"]. The Applications were, therefore, rejected.
5. The office of Hon'ble Apex Court forwarded certified
copy of record and proceedings dated 3rd December 2012
dismissing Special Leave Petition No. 34728 and 36461 of 2012
challenging these orders dated 6th November 2012. Hon'ble Apex
Court while dismissing Special Leave Petitions, clarified that
observations of High Court were with a view to consider the request
for grant of interim relief, of prima facie nature and can not
influence final consideration. Hon'ble Apex Court desired that the
Writ Petitions should be disposed of preferably within three months.
The matters then appeared before this Court on 2-9-2013, and as
requested, were adjourned to 7-10-2013, by way of last chance.
Arguments of respective parties were then heard and matter came to
be closed for judgment on 9-10-2013.
6. Learned Sr. Adv. Mr. Dixit for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 3694 of 2012, after a brief mention of the history
giving rise to this litigation, pointed out that earlier Writ Petition No.
3495 of 1989 was filed by these Unions challenging the amendment
made to 1961 Act, and Division Bench of this Court, after hearing
respective Counsel at length, did not find any substance in
challenge to the return of land in possession of respondent no.2 -
Farming Corporation to ex-lessors of those lands. Accordingly,
petition was dismissed on 19-7-2005. In the meanwhile, in the wake
of further amendment to 1961 Act, during pendency of Writ Petition
No. 3495 of 1989, vide Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 2003; Writ
Petition No. 2978 of 2003 came to be filed. The very same Division
Bench vide judgment pronounced on 23rd September 2005 negated
that challenge and dismissed that petition. This was then
questioned before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 462 of
2008 and Hon'ble Apex Court did not find any case made out
warranting interference. It accordingly dismissed the appeal.
However, the undertaking given by the learned Counsel appearing
for the State of Maharashtra that permanent employees of the
appellants would not be terminated and they will be paid wages at
the rate last drawn as per earlier orders of Hon'ble Apex Court dated
3rd July 2008, came to be recorded and accepted. Review Petition
(Civil) No. 13 of 2012 was then dismissed on 31-1-2012 and then a
curative petition filed in the matter has also been dismissed.
7. Learned Sr. Adv. Mr. Dixit submits that it is in this
background, that Writ Petition No. 3694 of 2012 came to be filed.
He contends that the 2011 amendment made to Ceiling Act, 1961,
vide Maharashtra Act No. I of 2012 and before that, vide
Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006 needs to be examined by this
Court in the present matter.
8. According to learned Sr. Adv. Mr. Dixit, the decision to
return land taken back from Farming Corporation by State
Government to ex-lessors is unsustainable as it cannot be viewed as
an agrarian reform. He invites attention to provisions of Section 27
of 1961 Act, to submit that land taken back from respondent no.2
must be disposed of in terms thereof and hence, it must be given to
members of petitioners - Unions who have earned their livelihood
only through agricultural labour since generations on these lands.
These lands were occupied by their ancestors and ancestors, as also
their descendants stay on these lands and cultivate it.
9. He submits that neither 2006 amendment nor 2011
amendment have been assented to by the Hon'ble President of India
and hence, same are liable to be ignored and set aside. He is relying
upon provisions of Article 213 of the Constitution of India for the
said purpose.
10. He has also invited attention to chronology in above Writ
Petitions and important events to show that the lessors / land
owners who did not earlier apply for return of land within stipulated
period of 90 days cannot be given a fresh or new opportunity and
their right has lapsed. After lapsing of their right, a corresponding
right of members of petitioners - Unions has again revived and that
right cannot be defeated or taken away. Thus, grant of 90 days time
more by two later amendments to such lessors / land owners is
alleged to be arbitrary and mala fide.
11. He points out that earlier when question of return of
land was being looked into in 1975, there was a ceiling on income of
such lessor. Even in 2000 amendment, such ceiling was maintained.
However, later on that ceiling is totally removed and thus, without
any guidelines and arbitrarily lands are being returned back to
earlier lessors or their legal heirs. He invites attention to provision
of Section 21(4) of the 1961 Act to submit that same gets violated in
the present matter.
12. Inviting attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S.B. Kamble & others
[(1975) 1 SCC 696], he attempts to demonstrate how 1961 Act has
been found protected under Article 31A and 31B because of its
placement in Schedule 9. He submits that in this background,
defence in reply, that assent of President was not required, is
erroneous. He draws support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sriram Narayan Medhi Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(1971) 2 SCC 106]. He submits that defence of respondents that
amendment effected in 2006 or in 2011 are only procedural and
integral parts of agrarian reforms, is misconceived.
13. Inviting attention to details of extent of holding with
respondent no.2 - Farming Corporation, as given in Ground No. XI of
the Writ Petition, he states that four farms of respondent no.2 will be
completely wiped out as there will be no land with them.
Remaining four farms will have holding of 50 Acres, 378 Acres, 245
Acres and 489 Acres. With such small holdings, these farms cannot
be profitably managed. He also adds that in, the legal heirs of
lessors who held surplus lands cannot now aspire for it & seek
restoration.
14. To substantiate his contentions, he has invited our
attention to various findings recorded by this Court in its judgment
dated 23rd September 2005, in Writ Petition No. 2978 of 2003.
15. After inviting our attention to undertaking recorded by
Hon'ble Apex Court, while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2008
on 30th August 2011, to show how respondent no.2 or respondent
no.1 have not given correct extent of total holding, he has invited
our attention to additional affidavit filed by respondent no.1,
additional affidavit of petitioner, as also to affidavit filed by the State
Government before Hon'ble Apex Court. He contends that the State
Government and respondent no.2 are not making clean breast of the
matter.
16. To point out absence of any merit in respondents'
challenge to the locus of the present petitioner to maintain such Writ
Petitions, he attempts to demonstrate how the very survival of the
members of the Petitioners is at stake. He submits that the Bombay
Industrial Relations Act, 1946, has been extended to Sugar Industry
on 4-10-1952 and the petitioners have got necessary certificate of
registration as Trade Unions to represent the workers. He points
out that Kopargaon Taluka Sahakari Kamgar Sanstha i.e. petitioner
no.2 is registered as a representative Union for Sugar Industry in the
local area of Kopargaon Taluka.
17. Adv. Mr. Mantri for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2828
of 2007, submits that 2003 amendment has been effected with the
assent of Hon'ble President. He emphasizes the fact that proviso
prescribing time period of 90 days for seeking restoration of land to
be returned has been added at the instance of Hon'ble President and
accordingly that Act has been published on 29-4-2003. In this
background, he invites attention of court, to paragraphs 15 to 17 in
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S.B. Kamble & others (supra).
According to him, this is sufficient to vitiate the grant of further time
due to absence of assent of President to amendments or further
extensions given in 2006 and 2011/2012. He contends that said
extensions ought to have also been assented to by the Hon'ble
President and in the absence of that assent, later extensions &
further exercise are without jurisdiction.
18. He states that the petitioners need priority in the matter
of allotment of surplus land taken by the State Government in terms
of Section 27 of 1961 Act. Division Bench judgment of this Court
dated 23rd September 2005 is also pointed out to show that there is
a promise by Government in this respect. He contends that in this
background, in challenge of the present nature, the objection to
locus of petitioners being raised by State Government, is
misconceived.
19. He has explained the amended provisions to urge that
restoration of land to landlords / lessors is being done in most
arbitrary manner. There are no guidelines and the earlier
requirements of having income below particular amount every year,
have been deleted. Therefore, spirit of 1961 Act is being violated.
Our attention has been invited to a chart placed on record with Civil
Application No. 9195 of 2013, to show that lands earlier taken by
State Government from lessors are now been substituted by some
other lands and the policy decision to return lands is, thus being
misused by influential persons who obtain other or better lands. He
contends that in the absence of proper monitoring and guidelines,
the process of return of land is not transparent. Subsequent changes
in the user of land being returned, like non-agricultural purpose or
then, any reservation fastened upon it in terms of Maharashtra
Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, have also not been looked into
by the State.
20. He also adds to arguments of Sr. Adv. Mr. Dixit, by
submitting that amending Act does not refer to legal heirs and
provisions of Section 2(11)/(22) only envisage a person living in
1962.
21. Learned Advocate General Mr. Khambata, appearing with
learned Asst. Adv. General Mr. Cama, learned GP Mr. Kurundkar and
AGP Mr. Tambe, has invited our attention to list of dates produced
by the State Government on record to justify the need of 2006 or
2012 amendments.
22. He further states that Section 3 of 1961 Act contemplates
ceiling area and its calculation qua a person or family unit. Section
21(4) is about vesting of surplus land with State Government, while
Section 27(2) permits distribution of surplus land to a tenant on
land. Section 27(3)(a) contemplates its return to landlord and
Section 27(6) speaks of an employee rendered unemployed. None
of the petitioners is being rendered unemployed. He reiterates
assurance of no retrenchment as recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court to
the permanent employees. He submits that reference to 3500
casuals by petitioners is misconceived when viewed in this
background. He also draws support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs.
Umadevi & others [AIR 2006 SC 1806]. He argues that Section 28
and Section 28AA are special provisions and Section 28(2)(b)(ii) of
1961 Act envisages agricultural labour. Section 28AA is a complete
code within 1961 Act. In view of this, Sub-Section 1 of Section 28
ceases to apply when land is given to a Farming Corporation.
Section 28AA(2)(b) - (i) extinguishes the vested rights and,
therefore, Article 31A got attracted. Second proviso to Section
28AA(3) is on time period of 90 days and this proviso or third
proviso do not take away or extinguish the rights. On the contrary,
these provisions aim to create a right in favour of ex-lessor.
Therefore, Article 31A does not apply and there is no need to obtain
assent of Hon'ble President.
23. He further contends that there is no challenge to grant of
additional time in 2011. He takes support from the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
S.B. Kamble & others (supra), particularly paragraphs 28, 29, 31
and 32. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah etc. etc. Vs. The State of Gujarat and
others (AIR 1969 SC 168), paragraph 11, is also pressed into
service to urge that in the present situation, assent of Hon'ble
President was not necessary as subject land is not to vest in State.
The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sriram Narayan
Medhi Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), paragraph 11, is also
pressed into service for the very same purpose. He also adds that in
any case, absence of assent of Hon'ble President exposes the proviso
to challenges under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of
India. However, there are no such challenges posed in present
matters. Judgment of Division Bench dated 23rd September 2005
concludes said challenge in so far as Articles 14 or 19 are concerned
& as the said judgment is between parties, it operates as res judicata.
He has taken us extensively through said judgment. He points out
that the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and undertaking of State Government has been
recorded therein. That undertaking continues to operate even today.
Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed review sought by the Petitioners
on 31-1-2012.
24. In the light of sequence of events, he submits that
though opportunity was extended to lessors to apply within 90 days,
because of restraining orders granted by various Courts, landlords
could not utilize it. Therefore, Government found it necessary to
grant further extensions. Statement of object and reasons of 2011
i.e. 2012 Amendment Act is also read out to buttress these
contentions.
25. He further submits that legal heirs are very much
covered within definition of "family" and Section 28(3) employes
word "person". He relies upon order dated 6-11-2012 in Civil
Application No. 12976 of 2012, to urge that this controversy had
been decided against petitioners, however, the Supreme Court in its
order dated 3-12-2012 has clarified that these observations of
Division Bench of this High Court are only prima facie in nature.
26. Assailing the locus of petitioners, learned Government
Pleader submits that wide concept thereof, as viewed in public
interest litigation, is not germane here. The petitioners must show
legal right. Support is being taken from the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State
of Maharashtra & others [(2013) 4 SCC 465], and particularly
paragraph 9 thereof. According to him, here members of
petitioners / Unions have no right but it is the respondent no.2 -
Farming Corporation to whom land was given and has been taken
back, may at the most, claim some prejudice. The judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Charanjit Lal Chowdhary Vs. The
Union of India & others [AIR 1951 SC 41], particularly paragraphs
81 and 82, are also relied upon.
27. He also invites our attention to affidavit on record to
show the number of permanent employees with the Farming
Corporation to be 317 in July 2013. He further states that about
43607 Acres of land is still available and after completing the return,
at the most, 18000 Acres may be reduced therefrom. He reiterates
the undertaking as recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court.
28. Lastly, he submits that Article 213 of the Constitution
which deals with ordinance making power has got no bearing in
this matter. He submits that the grant of extended period became
necessary due to peculiar developments & both the writ petitions are
liable to be dismissed.
29. Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhorde on behalf of respondent no.2 /
Farming Corporation, while opposing the petition, pointed out that
Section 27(3)(b) is not attracted as it is in relation to employees of
the owners whose lands are declared surplus after filing of return
under Section 12 of the 1961 Act.
30. Adv. Mr. Kulkarni appearing for intervenors states that
intervenors are ex-lessors found entitled to return of land by the
Legislation. They had filed Writ Petition No. 3395 of 1991 against
State of Maharashtra and Farming Corporation in representative
capacity. Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands
Act treats leases for the purposes of cultivation of sugarcane
differently and lessors / landlords did not have any right of
resumption of such lands till 1969. Most of the lessors, therefore,
did not have and could not retain lands even within prescribed
ceiling area as per 1961 Act. In this situation, grievance made in
Writ Petition by them has been favourably considered by the elected
representatives in both the State assemblies and provision to return
land to them came to be added by the amendment. He states that
respondent no.2 / Farming Corporation could not cultivate about 60
% of land given to it and sold some lands contrary to terms of grant
as it was in losses. He submits that Section 28(1)AA needs to be
viewed in this background. He has invited our attention to terms
and conditions subject to which land came to be granted to
respondent no.2 to urge that those terms and conditions have mostly
violated by said respondent.
31. Adv. Mr. V.D. Sapkal also appearing for intervenors /
landlords has adopted arguments of Adv. Mr. Kulkarni. He submits
that Article 246(3) read with Item 18 of list 2 in 7th Schedule of the
Constitution of India, is relevant for this purposes. Articles 200 and
201 show the powers of Hon'ble Governor and looking to the nature
of amendment, it was not necessary to obtain the assent of Hon'ble
President. He has relied upon Division Bench judgment of Andhra
Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs.
Govt. of A.P. [AIR1985 AP 217], particularly paragraphs 5 and 9.
32. Adv. Mr. Tambe for respondent nos.38 to 41 / lessors has
adopted above arguments of Adv. Mr. Kulkarni and Adv. Mr. Sapkal.
33. In reply arguments, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dixit has pointed out
that period of 90 days initially granted expired when there was no
restraining order or stay by any court of law. He further contends
that Hon'ble Apex Court has kept the issue of locus open. He invites
attention to provisions of Section 28(2)(b)(ii) to show that land can
be restored to laborers of undertaking i.e. laborers of respondent no.
2. Details furnished in this respect by respondent no.2 are again
pointed out by him. Analogy of winding up proceedings under
Company's Act and judgment in the case of National Textile
Workers' Union etc. Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and others [AIR 1983
SC 75], is pressed into service to point out role of workmen or their
Unions in such matters.
34. Adv. Mr. Mantri for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2828
of 2007 has submitted that members of petitioner Unions are on
land since long before the year 1961 when 1961 Act came to be
applied to it. Formation of respondent no.2 / Farming Corporation
is only with a view to protect jobs of petitioners. Petitioners become
jobless and landless if lands are distributed back to landlords.
Hence, they are entitled to consideration in terms of Section 27(5)
(iv). This right which accrued to them after initial expiry of period
of 90 days cannot be extinguished and in any case, Hon'ble President
has not assented to such extinguishment. He further invites
attention to Civil Application No. 9195 of 2013, to urge that State
Government has not prescribed any restrictions or eligibility norms
for return of such lands and Government Resolution dated
9-11-2012 also does not contain any guidelines. He has invited our
attention to pleadings in said Civil Application to show how
distribution or return of land is being arbitrarily done. He contends
that arguments of Adv. Mr. Sapkal are irrelevant in the face of Article
31A and 31B.
35. In the backdrop of above arguments, we find it proper to
first consider the controversy on merits and thereafter to examine
various preliminary objections or other arguments.
36. Prayer clauses in Writ Petition No. 3694 of 2012, are as
under:
(A) "Rule" may kindly be issued;
(B) The Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006
published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on
17-4-2006 (Exhibit "A"), be declared illegal, null
and void and ultra vires of the Constitution of India
and be quashed and set aside;
(C) The Ordinance No.III of 2006 published in
Maharashtra Government Gazette on 17-2-2006 (at
Exhibit "B") has been promulgated without
instructions from the President and neither the Bill
was reserved for consideration of the President nor
Assent of the President has been obtained to the Act
No. VIII of 2006 published in Maharashtra
Government Gazette on 17-4-2006 and therefore, it
be declared that Act No. VIII of 2006 and Ordinance
No. III of 2006 is not valid legislation and is ultra
vires of the Constitution of India and has no legal
force;
(D) Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other
Writ and/or direction in the nature of Writes be
issued and it be held that Act No. VIII of 2006
published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on
17-4-2006 (Exhibit "A") is unenforceable and can
not be acted upon since it is not a law nor it is
having force of law and the same is liable to be
quashed and set aside;
(E) By writ of mandamus, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus declaring that, the Act No.
1 of 2012 namely Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 2011, annexed to the
petition at Exhibit "L" be declared ultra virus of the
Constitution of India and it be accordingly struck
down;
(F) Pending hearing and final disposal of this
petition, the execution, implementation, operation
of the Act No.1 of 2012 namely Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 2011,
as published in Government Gazette dated 2nd of
February 2012 annexed to the present Petition at
Exhibit "L" be stayed;
(G) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (F)
may kindly be granted;
(H) Any other just and equitable relief this
Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, in
the interest of the petitioners, may kindly be
granted.
37. Prayers in Writ Petition No. 2828 of 2007 read as under :
(A) 'Rule' may kindly be issued;
(B) The Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006
published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on
17-4-2006 (Exhibit "A"), be declared illegal, null
and void and ultra virus of the Constitution of India
and be quashed and set aside;
(C) The Ordinance No.III of 2006 published in
Maharashtra Government Gazette on 17-2-2006 (at
Exhibit "B") has been promulgated without
instructions from the President and neither the Bill
was reserved for consideration of the President nor
Assent of the President has been obtained to the Act
No. VIII of 2006 published in Maharashtra
Government Gazette on 17-4-2006 and therefore, it
be declared that Act No. VIII of 2006 and Ordinance
No. III of 2006 is not valid legislation and is ultra
virus of the Constitution of India and has no legal
force;
(C-1) Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other
Writ and/or direction in the nature of Writs be
issued and it be held that Act No. VIII of 2006
published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on
17-4-2006 (Exhibit "A") is unenforceable and cannot
be acted upon since it is not a law nor it is having
force of law and the same is liable to be quashed
and set aside;
(E) Pending hearing and final disposal of this
petition, the respondents be restrained by way of
injunction not to proceed further with the
applications if received for grant of land under
Section 28-1AA from the ex-lessors, in pursuance of
the Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006 published in
Maharashtra Government Gazette on 17-4-2006
annexed at Exhibit "A" to this petition;
(F) Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ
petition, the effect, operation, execution and
implementation of the impugned Maharashtra Act
No. VIII of 2006 published in Maharashtra
Government Gazette on 17-4-2006 (Exhibit "A"), be
stayed;
(G) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (E)
and (F) may kindly be granted;
(H) Any other just and equitable relief this Hon'ble
High Court deems fit and proper in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of present case, in the
interest of the petitioners, may kindly be granted.
38. Judgment dated 23rd September 2005 concludes
challenge to Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 2003 and findings recorded
by said Division Bench in paragraph 13 are as under :-
"To sum up, we record the following conclusions :
(A) The Maharashtra Amendment Act No.
17/2003 can not be challenged on the ground of
violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution
as the same has been published after receiving the
assent of the President and is protected by Article
31A of the Constitution of India.
(B) The amending Act does not have the
protection of Article 31B of the Constitution of
India though the parent Act is included in the
Ninth Schedule.
(C) The amending Act does not violate the right
of the members of the petitioner Union guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In this view of the matter, there is no merit
in the petition and the same deserves to be
dismissed. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed
and rule is discharged. However, in the facts of
the present case, there shall be no orders as to
costs. "
39. It is, therefore, clear that this Court has to consider the
impact of 2006 amendment and thereafter 2011 amendment i.e.
amendment by Act No. I of 2012. The original provision of Section
28(1)AA-(3) has a proviso i.e. second proviso and it stipulates that
person applying for return of land after 90 days from
commencement of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings)(Amendment) Act, 2001, is not eligible for return of such
land. This has been added by Maharashtra Amendment No. XVII of
2003. Challenge to validity of said amendment on any count, at the
instance of petitioners is concluded in the light of Division Bench
judgment noted supra and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court upholding said judgment while dismissing the SLP.
40. Ordinance issued in 2006, which later on became
Maharashtra Amendment Act No. VIII of 2006, gave period of 90
days more to a person i.e. earlier owner/landlord who had not
applied earlier or then who had applied after expiry of that period.
Such person has been obliged to apply for grant of said land within a
period of 90 days from the date of commencement of Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings)(Amendment) Act, 2006.
This has been amended further by Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings)(Amendment) Act, 2011 i.e. Maharashtra Act
No. I of 2012, with effect from 2nd February 2012. After above
mentioned proviso i.e. third proviso, one more proviso has been
added. In nutshell, this fourth proviso again gives a fresh period of
90 days to such persons to apply from the date of commencement of
this 2011 Amendment Act. Hence, 2006 amendment granting 90
days additional time and a later amendment again giving said time
are basically in dispute in both these petitions.
41. The petitioners have urged that initial period of 90 days
for moving application by ex-lessors to claim return of land has been
added at the instance of office of Hon'ble President while giving
assent to Maharashtra Amendment Act No. XVII of 2003. Later
extensions do not have the privilege of such assent of Hon'ble
President. This is the bone of contention in both the matters. When
decision to return land taken in 2001 and affirmed by Maharashtra
Amendment Act No. XVII of 2003 is already upheld and has
immunity because Article 31A of the Constitution of India, the
question of this nature does not arise at all. In so far as absence of
protective umbrella of Article 31B of the Constitution of India is
concerned, the challenge to Amendment Act No. XVII of 2003 has
failed already. Present challenge on very same grounds only to
extensions of time, therefore, cannot succeed. The purpose of
amendment is found already to be to further agrarian reforms.
Once the return of land to original landlords who leased out lands to
Sugar Factories is found essential to achieve agrarian reforms, it is
apparent that procedure therefor evolved by State Legislature cannot
be faulted with. None of the precedents show that it is the time
restraint of 90 days or then, by implication, absence of any provision
to extend said period of 90 days; which has weighed with Hon.
Apex Court or this Court while upholding the constitutional validity.
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate determinative property of the
said stipulation of period of 90 days in the matter.
42. Before referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court
on this issue, we find it important to note that Chapter VI of 1961
Act deals with subject of distribution of surplus land. Section 27 is
the general provision for said purpose. Section 28 is special
provision in respect of lands taken over from Industrial undertaking
under 1961 Act. Its purpose is to ensure efficient cultivation and
continuous supply of raw material to such Industrial undertaking.
Section 28 has been amended lastly by Maharashtra Amendment Act
No. 50 of 1973 with effect from 1st October 1969. Thus, this
provision was very much in existence when Hon'ble Apex Court
delivered its judgment in the case of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
S.B. Kamble & others (supra). Here, there is special scheme for
distribution of surplus lands. Sub-Section 2 of Section 28 opens
with non-obstante clause and expressly overrides Section 27.
Primacy has been given to maintain the integrity of area so declared
surplus and acquired, in one or more compact blocks. It enables
State Government to grant such land or any part thereof to joint
Farming Society of persons who had previously leased such land to
the undertaking. It also enables grant to Farming Society of
agricultural labour employed by undertaking of such land, of
technical or other staff, to Farming Society of adjoining landlords
who are small holders and lastly to Farming Society of landless
persons. Thus, in the interest of maintaining assured supply of raw
material to Industrial undertaking i.e. in public interest, Government
gave preference to Farming Societies of the persons mentioned
supra. It is in the background of this scheme that Section 28(1)AA
needs consideration.
43. In Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S.B. Kamble, ( supra) in
paragraph 32, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the
concept of agrarian reform is not static and cannot always be put in
a straitjacket. It is also stated that with the change of times, under
the impact of fresh ideas and in the context of fresh situations, the
concept of agrarian reform is bound to acquire new dimensions.
Apex Court states that the measure which has the effect of
improving the rural economy or promoting rural welfare would be a
part of agrarian reform. Although in most of the cases, as already
mentioned, the agrarian reform would require distribution of surplus
land among the poor peasants and landless persons living in the
villages, situations might well arise where it would be in the interest
of rural economy that any compact area of land instead of being
fragmented by distribution should be preserved as one compact
block and be cultivated by a State-owned farming corporation. The
fact that part of the acquired land would remain vested in the State
Government or State-owned farming corporation would not militate
against the object of agrarian reform if the continued vesting of the
land in the Government or the Corporation is a part of a general
scheme of agrarian reform and there is no oblique deviation from
the avowed purpose. In the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of
Punjab-- AIR 1965 SC 632, part of the acquired land was to vest in
the State Government for schools, playgrounds, dispensaries,
hospitals, waterworks, tubewells and as the above vesting was a part
of a general scheme of rural welfare, the statute providing for that
vesting was upheld and afforded the protection of Article 31-A.
Hon'ble Apex Court also clarified that " Ancillary provisions to give
full effect to a scheme of agrarian reform, it may be stressed, would
also have the protection of Article 31-A." The Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 23.9.2005 maintained by the Hon.
Apex Court needs to be viewed in this backdrop. It follows that the
concept of agrarian reforms can not be construed with any
preconceived notions & must be understood in the changing
demands of the Society.
44. Once it is seen that return of land is an agrarian reform,
extension of time to accomplish such return by itself cannot derogate
from this public purpose and cannot militate with inherent public
interest. We may refer to the findings of the Division Bench in
judgment dated 23.9.2005 where it is observed --
"It is rightly submitted by the learned
Counsel for the intervenors that if the amendment
does not change the main object or scheme of the
statute in regard to agrarian reform, then the
amendment as well would receive the protection of
Article 31-A. In the present case, the Amending Act
has been published after receiving the assent of the
President and there is no change made in regard to
the scheme agrarian reform. Prior to the Amending
Act of 2003 also, the Ex-lessors were at Sr. No. 1 in
the Preference List for grant of land, but, there were
two conditions which are done away with, by the
amending Act. Firstly, the income limit has been
obliterated and the area of land for grant to
Exchange has been increased upto the ceiling limit.
This minor modification, in no way, effects the
change in the scheme of the Act, which deals with
agrarian reform. In this view of the matter, it is clear
that the amending Act would also come under
protective umbrella of Article 31-A, and hence the
same cannot be challenged as violative of Articles 14
and 19 of the Constitution of India.
As pointed out hereinabove, the amended
provision of sub-section (3) and insertion of sub-
section (3-A) brings about a very insignificant change
inasmuch as, while granting the land to the Ex-
lessors, the ceiling limit of the income has been
removed and the ceiling on grant upto a maximum of
1.82 Hectares or 3.64 Hectares, as the case may be
has been raised to the ceiling limit. This slight
modification, in our view, does not in any manner
make any deviation from the agrarian reform. In this
view of the matter, we conclude that the provisions of
the Amending Act No. 17/2003 are valid and cannot
be assailed on the ground of violation of Articles 14
and 19 of the Constitution of India, as the same has
the protection of Article 31-A of the Constitution."
45. The above discussion holds good for rejecting the same
arguments repeated before us & even while considering extended
opportunities to the ex-lessors. It is not the endeavour of the
Petitioners to show that the provision for return of the land to earlier
landowners or ex-lessors has been upheld only because of stipulation
of period of 90 days therein within which the application for such
return needed to be filed. Once the need to return the land is validly
recognized to be an agrarian reform, stipulation of period of 90 days
or the time for claiming such return by itself can not play any
decisive role & can not be always material factor. Even if earlier
owners do apply within stipulated time, the consideration of such
claims or disputes may linger on indefinitely. It follows that there
may be several contingencies not permitting the ex-lessors or their
heirs to apply within stipulated time. Such contingencies may
include legally recognized disabilities also. Once the object is found
to be an agrarian reform, procedure or modalities to advance it & to
confer benefit thereof, will be immune from any challenge until
demonstrated to be totally perverse or without jurisdiction. We,
therefore do not find any substance in the challenge only to
extensions given by the State Legislation in 2006 & 2012. The above
Division Bench has also on 23.9.2005 considered the argument of
malice in the matter & rejected it. Challenge to dilution of norms
governing the entitlement to claim the return has also been rejected.
Hence, we need not even dwell upon that aspect. To preempt the
steps & measures in contemplation of State Government to deal with
or to dispose of the lands of Respondent 2 Corporation, a writ
petition 3495 of 1989 came to be filed and interim orders made
therein were confirmed on 25.2.2003. On 5.6.1998 orders were
passed on CA 3002 of 1998 and execution of decision of cabinet to
return the land to ex-lessors was stayed. On 31.1.2001 by passing
the orders on CA 4629 of 2000, High Court clarified that
consideration of a bill to amend the 1961 Act was not prohibited. It
is in this background that Maharashtra Act XVII of 2003 came to be
enacted on 29.4.2003 & it was questioned in WP 2978 of 2003. WP
3495 of 1989 in which interim orders were operating was disposed
of on 19.7.2005 due to subsequent amendment & WP 2978/2003.
Very same bench dismissed WP 2978 of 2003 on 23.9.2005. The
SOR of the Maharashtra Act VIII of 2006 (amendment) shows the
need felt for granting such extension. It is expressed that provision
for return of lands added by Maharashtra Act XVII of 2003 came into
force from 20.5.2003 & then there was a status-quo order by this
Court due to which several ex-lessors could not apply within
stipulated period of 90 days. Vacation of that order in recent past is
the reason disclosed for giving 90 days more. SOR of Maharashtra
Act I of 2012 mentions coming into force of Maharashtra Act VIII of
2006 on 17.2.2006 and grant of status quo order by the Hon'ble
Apex Court on 24.3.2006 before expiry of 90 days. Said appeal came
to be dismissed on 30.8.2011 & SOR /Bill are dated 14.12.2011.
Thus there is a nexus between the extensions & the developments in
Courts or interim orders. Common man will not get immediate
knowledge of grant of stay by a Court or its vacation. Here, the
period spent in Court or eclipsed by the restraining orders need not
be computed or excluded with mathematical precision & some
connection between the two events is sufficient if it has any bearing
on the provision made. Basically, it is the matter concerning general
public & within province of policy framers & they have found it
necessary to grant the extensions. Inadequate time to ex-lessors or
then the pending litigation & uncertainty looming due to it are the
reasons which prompted the framers to grant extensions. These
reasons can not be labeled as "not material" & lacking nexus with
the arrangement evolved. Their perception is not perverse or
arbitrary. Reasons are, obviously relevant and adequacy thereof, not
justiciable. Art. 31-B of the Constitution confers immunity if said
provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the
rights conferred by, any provisions of the Part III thereof on the
Petitioners. Petitioners have not even attempted to address this facet.
They have not pointed out which one of their right enshrined under
Part-III is being violated by granting the extensions vide 2006 or
2012 amendments. The undertaking found just & sufficient by the
Hon. Apex Court can not be avoided or ignored by this Court.
Similarly, as none of the vested rights of the ex-lessors or owners are
being taken away, only a provision granting further extensions of
time to apply for return of land need not have been reserved for the
assent of the Hon. President as the basic scheme to restore lands to
these persons to the extent of ceiling limit is already upheld by the
Courts. Hence, attempt to show violation of Art. 213 can not also be
countenanced.
46. Hon'ble Apex Court in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S.B.
Kamble, (supra) did not go into the question of locus as it, on merits,
found no substance in the challenge on merits. However, here it is not
in dispute that a trade union is free & can raise suitable challenges to
protect the interest of its members. The permanent as also temporary
or casual workmen on the establishments of Respondent 2 are
members of the Petitioners & their work or job as also residence in the
surplus lands to be returned & presently with Respondent 2 Farming
Society is apparently at stake. Recording of the statement by the
Hon'ble Apex Court to protect their wages as per its earlier orders
dated 3.7.2008 while disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2008 is
in lieu of & an implied recognition of workmens' right to livelihood. In
this situation , all arguments advanced on behalf of the respective
respondents do not show the lack of locus in Petitioners, but at the
most exhibit an attempt to demonstrate absence of any legal injury to
the members & lack of merit in said challenge. A defence of or a
finding of "no injury", "no legal right", "res-judicata" or "no merit"
etc. is possible only when this Court proceeds to consider merits of
the controversy & does not reject the writ petition at threshold by
refusing to entertain it due to absence of locus. In present matters, the
workmen through their respective trade unions are trying to save
their work & place of residence. They also attempt to execute their
right (alleged) to preferential allotment of the lands being taken back
from the respondent 2 Farming Corporation. It can not therefore be
said that they can not undertake such an exercise in the Court of Law.
Law gives them the right to approach a competent court for redressal
against what they feel is injustice. Hence, we can not accept the
preliminary objection of the lack of locus in them or their Trade
Unions. The judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & others
and Charanjit Lal Chowdhary Vs. The Union of India & others
(supra) relied upon by the learned AG also need no detail
consideration.
47. The controversy regarding exact number of workers also
need not detain us as in the same matter & in litigation commenced
at the instance of the Petitioners alone, the Hon'ble Apex Court
recorded the undertaking in Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2008 which
envisages only the permanent workmen. We can not, for same
reasons, consider the grievance relating to number or real status of
temporary or daily or casual employees. We, therefore need not deal
with the relevance of ratio in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
(supra). In the light of this undertaking, the exact extent of lands left
or to be left at the end of exercise of such return with respondent 2
Farming Corporation or its adequacy, is again a question not open in
these writ petitions. If return of lands to ex-lessors was/is to have
effect of displacing the members of the Petitioners, that also needed
to be ventilated only in Writ Petition No. 2978 of 2003 or then before
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2008. As no legal
right of any member of the Petitioners is being breached, contention
about arbitrary return/distribution of the lands to ex-lessors or their
heirs & alleged illegalities in the said process attempted to be urged
vide CA 0105/2013 also can not be & need not be gone into. Adv.
Mantri had pointed out an argument of State Government recorded in
judgment dated 18.7.2005 in WP 3495 of 1989 to urge that State
promised to allot some land with farm house to the laborers. We find
that it was only an option then pointed out to Court & it can not be
construed as conferring any right on the Petitioners. Moreover, the
later judgment dated 23.9.2005 of this Court & statement recorded by
Hon. Apex Court in Appeal against it, definitely eclipse it. However,
being a policy matter, it is always open to the State Government to
evaluate various alternatives & no interference by a court is
warranted in said matter or for said purpose, in these writ petitions.
48. Contention that lands cannot be restored to the legal heirs
of the original landowners or ex-lessors is equally misconceived.
Once, scheme to return the land is upheld & is to be implemented,
death of such ex-lessors before the scheme is not a material factor at
all. If the landowner dies during pendency of proceedings for
determination of surplus lands, his heirs represent his estate as legal
representatives. Heirs also find inclusion in definition of "family" in S.
2 (11) of 1961 Act. Thus, the entitlement of entire family unit [S.
2(11A)] to retain a particular area of land is visualized in the basic
scheme of 1961 Act. If the head of the family is no more before ceiling
area is worked out under said enactment or expires after submitting
an application for return of land as per the amended provisions, his
heirs can definitely prosecute the matter further. In this situation,
death after coming into force of the provision for return of land also
will not deny participation to his heirs. Hence, merely because he
expired before the amendment, his heir can not be disqualified. The
1961 Act regulates holding of a "person" as defined in S. 2(22) which
also includes a "family" & hence, members or the heirs also.
Enactment under consideration is basically on agrarian reforms & a
welfare measure. Even if we presume a doubt, though none exists, a
wide or liberal construction will not be out of place. We, therefore,
find no substance in the contention that the legal heirs of deceased
landowner or ex-lessors can not seek return of land.
49. In view of this discussion, we allow CA 379 & 9195 of
2013 in Writ Petition No. 2828 of 2007 for amendment as nobody
opposed the same & have addressed the Court effectively. CA No.
10424 & CA No. 9191 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 3694 are also
allowed for same reasons. Necessary amendments be carried out
forthwith. CA No. 9208 /2013 in Writ Petition No. 2828/2007 & CA
No. 9196/13 in Writ Petition No. 3694 of 2013 seeking directions to
revenue authorities not to record the names of ex-lessors or heirs on
lands received back by them are rejected as misconceived. We find no
merit in the challenges raised and dismiss both the writ petitions.
Rule is discharged in both the matters, however, without any orders as
to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )
JUDGE JUDGE
................................
Transcend/
bgp/
