JUDGMENT
Tarkeshwar Nath, J.
1. (The case is being reported only on the question of the vires of Section 27 of the Santal Parganas Regulation (3 of 1872). Hence Paras. 1 to 10 are omitted — Ed.)
11. Mr. Ghosal finally submitted that the provisions of Section 27 were, ultra vires as they were opposed to the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution of India. His contention was that the plaintiff had a right to dispose of his property according to his own sweet will under that Article, the provisions of Section 27 had now become nugatory. He referred to Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India which is as follows:
“All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void”.
He urged that the provisions of Section 27 of the said Regulations were inconsistent with those of Article 19 (1) (f) and as such, the former were void on the ground of inconsistency. Clause (5) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India is, however, in the following terms:
“Nothing in Sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or prevents the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interest of any scheduled Tribe”.
Clause (1) (f) has to be read in conjunction with Clause (5) and the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) are controlled by Clause (5). Clause (5) enables the State to make reasonable laws imposing restriction on the rights declared by Clause (1) (f) when such restrictions become necessary and expedient by the requirements of public interest. The law under which restraint on an alienation has been imposed may be justified and valid if the restraint is reasonable and has been imposed, having regard to the welfare of the Public. The heading itself of Regulation III of 1872 is as follows:
“A Regulation for the peace and good Government of the Territory known as the Santhal Parganas.”
Mr. Bhabananda Mukherji for the plaintiff-respondent referred to Paragaph 26 of the Final Report by Mr. J.P. Gantzer and the relevant portions are in the following terms:
“The question of transfers is one of the most important with which this settlement has had to deal, and it is in fact one which affects the very root of the whole Santal Parganas system. Broadly speaking it may be said that the whole object of the agrarian law of the district since 1872, when Regulation III of that year was introduced, is to ensure that the population should be allowed to remain undisturbed in possession of its ancestral property and that any reclamation of waste lands which is done in any village shall be done only by the jamabandi raiyats of the village. The history of the district plainly shows that the vast majority of the people in it are quite unable to grasp the principle of outsiders taking possession of their lands whether legally or illegally that is to say either by force or by the ordinary means of acquiring land such as sale, mortgage or certain form of sub-lease.”
The purpose for enacting Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872 can be gathered from the following observations made in the case of Bahuballav Mandal v. Sashi Bhusan Dass, (1957 Pat LR 288):
“The main object of the law forbidding transfer of the raiyati holdings in the district of Santal Perganas, is to prevent the extinction of the tribal classes and to maintain and preserve their culture. If the admissions of the unsophisticated and spendthrift tribal people were to override the statutory provisions, the very object of the law will be frustrated.”
It was held in the case of Surendra Prosad Singh v. Tekait Singh, AIR 1929 Pat 700 (FB) that Section 27 of the Regulation prohibited both voluntary and involuntary alienation by the raiyat and the policy of the Legislature was to make it clear that raiyati holdings of the agriculturists in Santal Perganas should not be transferred. Mr. Ghosal referred to the case of Jeshingbhai Ishwarlal v. Emperor, AIR 1950 Bom 363 (FB) and relied upon the following passage:
“It is important to note that the Legislature has been given the power to impose restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred under Article 19(1) Sub-clause (b) and (e) but it is equally important to note that those restrictions have to be reasonable restrictions. It is not for the legislature to determine whether the restrictions are reasonable or not. It is for the court of law to consider the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed upon the rights. ‘Reasonable’ is an objective expression, and its objectivity is to be determined judicially by the court of law.”
Mr. Ghosal further referred to the case of Brajnandan Sharma v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1950 Pat 322 (FB) and there also it was held that it was for the courts to decide whether the restrictive provisions were reasonable or not and they had to apply the objective test and not the subjective test. These cases lay down that the Courts have to decide the reasonableness or otherwise of the provisions of an Act. It is well settled that it is to be presumed that an Act is valid and intra vires and in this connection it will be useful to refer to the following observations in the case of Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 942:.
“The decisions of this Court further establish that there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the Constitutional guarantee; that it must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds, and further that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest.”
12. Having regard to these considerations I am of the opinion that the restrictions regarding transfer of holdings laid down in Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872 were reasonable as they were in the interests of the raiyats in the district of Santal Parganas with a view to maintain their social status, preserve their culture and prevent the extinction of the village community. The contention of Mr. Ghosal on this score as well is accordingly overruled.
13. The result is that the appeal fails and it is dismissed hut without costs in the circumstances of the present case.