{"id":99906,"date":"1966-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966"},"modified":"2016-01-21T12:58:54","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T07:28:54","slug":"gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966","title":{"rendered":"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1110, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 602<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V., Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGULABHAI VALLABHBHAI DESAI ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/09\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION<\/a>:\n 1967 AIR 1110\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 602\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1978 SC 215\t (36)\n\n\nACT:\nDaman  (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages)  Regulation\n(7  of\t1962) and Constitution of India,  1950,\t Art.  31-A-\nRegulation, if constitutionally valid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  1962, after the annexation of the territories  belonging\nto  India  from\t Portuguese hands, the\tPresident  of  India\npromulgated  the  Daman\t (Abolition  of\t Proprietorship\t  of\nVillages)  Regulation,\t1962,  for  the\t abolition  of\t the\nproprietorship\tof  villages in Daman  district.   The\tfive\npetitioners, who were proprietors of lands in five villages,\nchallenged the validity of the Regulation under Arts. 14, 19\nand  31\t of  the  Constitution, while  the  Union  of  India\ncontended that the Regulation was protected by Art. 31-A.\nHELD  : With respect to those portions of the lands  of\t the\npetitioners   which   were  devoted   to   agricultural\t  or\nhorticultural  purposes, the proprietorship ceases  and\t the\nRegulation operates upon them, because they fall within\t the\ndefinition  of \"estate\" under Art.  31-A(2)(a)(iii).   Those\nportions  vest\tin  the Government  subject  to\t payment  of\ncompensation under the Regulation.  As regards the portions-\nwhich  are hilly land, salt pans, salt lands,  quarries,  or\nlands  within  a  municipal area, they do not  vest  in\t the\nGovernment  under the Regulation and Art. 31-A(2)  does\t not\nlend  its protection to their  expropriation.\tCompensation\nfor them, if acquired,, would have to be assessed and  given\non  considerations other than those in the Regulation.\t[605\nE; 616 A-C, F-G; 617 El\nThe  Regulation\t deals with agrarian  reform.\tIts  general\nscheme\tfollows\t that of the other  Reform  Acts  abolishing\nintermediaries\tin India.  But, in order that protection  of\nArt.  31-A may be available to the Regulation  the  interest\nabolished by the Regulation must come within the compendious\ndefinition of \"estate\" in Art. 31-A(2) of the  Constitution,\ninserted  by the Constitution (Seventeenth  Amendment)\tAct.\nAs  the word \" estate\" as such has not been used in  any  of\nthe  Portuguese laws previously in force in the district  of\nDaman, the lands and the interests in them, abolished by the\nRegulation,,  cannot  be  referred to  as  \"estates\".\tThey\ncannot also be treated as the equivalent of \"estates\"  under\nthe Indian Revenue Law, because, under the Indian Law to  be\nan  \"estate\" there must be land which pays land revenue\t and\nwhich  is  held in accordance with a law  relating  to\tland\ntenures.   But as all lands in the district belonged to\t the\nCrown,\tPortuguese  law\t contemplated only  three  kinds  of\ndealing\t with  land : (a) grant of a  permanent\t lease,\t (b)\ngrant  of  a period lease, and (c) sale; but  there  was  no\ntenure\tnor payment of land revenue.  No condition on  which\nthe lands were held in Daman district could properly be said\nto  be\ta  condition denoting tenure.  The  payment  to\t the\nGovernment was either rent or a percentage of the presumable\nincome from land.  The holders were paying a kind of income-\ntax which resembled agricultural income-tax under the Indian\nLaw.   Even if it be regarded as land revenue, there was  no\nlaw  of\t land tenures, because, all the property,  urban  or\nagricultural,,\twas  held alike on lease or by\tpersons\t who\nwere owners by purchase. [604 F-G; 607 E-G; 610 H; 612 A-El\n603\nAs  regards  the three entities which are  included  in\t the\ndefinition of estate\" in Art. 31-A(2)(a), clause (ii) is not\napplicable  to\tthe  lands because, there  was\tno  ryotwari\nsettlement  or\ttenure in Daman district  Clause  (i)  which\nmentions  \"any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar  grant\"\ncould apply to one village which was granted for the  upkeep\nof  one\t Arab  horse, but- there was no\t evidence  that\t the\nvillage was held on confessional terms.\t Clause (iii), which\nincludes \"any land held or let for purpose of agriculture or\nfor purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest\nland,  land  for  pasture or sites of  buildings  and  other\nstructures,  occupied by cultivators of\t land,\tagricultural\nlabourers  and\tvillage artisans\", however, applies  to\t the\nbulk of the land in all the ,villages.\tBut certain parts in\nthe villages consist of salt pans, gravel pits, quarries and\nhills,\tand the property rights of the petitioners  in\tsuch\nparts  of  lands  were\talso extinguished by  s.  3  of\t the\nRegulation,   because,\tthe  definition\t of  land   in\t the\nRegulation  includes  all  categories of  land.\t  Thus,\t the\ndefinition  of \"land\" in the Regulation is at variance\twith\nthe  definition of \"estate\" in the Article and is not  fully\nprotected by the Article.  The protection cannot be  invoked\nby interpreting the definition to accord with the definition\nof  \"estate\" in the Article on the principle that  a  legis-\nlature only acts within its powers, because, the  Regulation\nwas made in 1962, whereas Art. 31-A in its present form\t was\nintroduced, though retrospectively, in 1964.  The  President\nof India, when he made the Regulation in 1962, could not  be\nsaid to have been cognizant of the limit of his own power to\nmake  it  in consonance with the definition of\t\"estate\"  in\nArt.  31-A introduced later.  The Regulation however,  would\nstill operate, as the definition of \"land\" is severable\t and\nthe protection of Art. 31-A would be confined to those parts\nof  the\t lands\tin  the\t villages  which  fell\twithin\t the\ndefinition of \" estate\" in Art. 31-A(2)(a)(iii). [605  B-C,;\n612 F; 613 D-E, H; 615 F-H)\nR  M. D. Chamarbaugivalla v. Union of India,<\/a>  [1957]  S.C.R.\n930, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 148, 149, 233  &
\n238 of 1962 and 216 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the
\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
A.   K.\t Yen, R. J. Joshi, B. Dutta, Dilip M. Desai, J.\t .B.
\nDadachanji,  0.\t C.  Mathur and\t Ravinder  Narain,  for\t the
\npetitioner (in W.P. No. 148 of 1962).\n<\/p>\n
Purshottam Trikamdas, R. J. Joshi, B. Dutta, Dalip M. Desai,
\nJ. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for\t the
\npetitioner (in W.P. No. 149 of 1962).\n<\/p>\n
R.   J. Joshi, B. Dutta, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur\t and
\nRavinder  Narain, for the petitioners (in W.P. Nos. 233\t and
\n238 of 1962).\n<\/p>\n
Purshottam  Trikumdas,\tB. Dutta, J. B.\t Dadachanji,  O.  C.
\nMathur\t  and Ravinder Narain, for the petitioners (in\tW.P.\n<\/p>\n
No. 216 of     1963).\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary,  Attorney-General, N. S.  Bindra,  R.  H.
\nDhebar\tand  B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent (in  all\t the
\npetitions).\n<\/p>\n
604<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah,  J. This judgment will dispose of\t Writ  Peti-
\ntions  Nos. 148, 149, 233 and 238 of 1962 and 216  of  1963.
\nThey raise a common question about the validity of the Daman
\n(Abolition  of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation,\t1962
\n(No.   VII of 1962).  We shall refer to this  Regulation  as
\n“the Regulation” in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
By the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962, the First
\nSchedule to the Constitution was amended by including  under
\nthe  heading  “The Union Territories” after Entry 7,  a\t new
\nEntry which read :\n<\/p>\n
“8.  Goa,  Daman and Diu\t The  territories      which
\nimmediately, before the twentieth day of December, 1961 were
\ncomprised in Goa, Daman and Diu”.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, in Art. 240 which gives power to the President to
\nmake regulations for Union territories the words “Goa, Daman
\nand Diu” were inserted.\t This followed the annexation of the
\nterritories  belonging\tto  India  which  had  passed\tinto
\nPortuguese   hands.    On  March  5,  1962   the   President
\npromulgated   the  Goa,\t Daman\tand   Diu   (Administration)
\nOrdinance,  1962 to operate from the appointed day,  namely,
\nDecember  20,  1961 providing, among other things,  for\t the
\ncontinuance  of\t all laws in force  immediately\t before\t the
\nappointed  day\tin Goa, Daman and Diu or  any  part  thereof
\nuntil  amended\tor repealed by a  competent  Legislature  or
\nother competent authority.  A power to extend laws, with  or
\nwithout modification, and to remove difficulties by an order
\nconsistent  with  the Ordinance was also  conferred  on\t the
\nCentral Government.\n<\/p>\n
In  exercise of the powers so conferred the Regulation-\t was
\nenacted.  The general scheme of the Regulation follows\tthat
\nof the other Reform Acts abolishing intermediaries in India.
\nIn some respects the Regulation makes a special provision in
\nview  of the laws in force in the former district of  Daman.
\nTo these special features we may now refer.  The  Regulation
\npurports to abolish the proprietorship of villages in  Daman
\nDistrict.   It defines the ” appointed date” as the date  on
\nwhich it came into force and “land” as meaning “every  class
\nor  category of land” and including “(i) benefits  to  arise
\nout  of such land, and (ii) things attached to\tearth”.\t  It
\nalso  defines “proprietor” to mean “a person who  holds\t any
\nvillage\t or  villages granted to him or any  of\t his  prede-
\ncessors-in-interest  by the former Portuguese Government  by
\nway of gift, sale or otherwise” and includes his co-sharers.
\n“Cultiva-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    605<\/span><\/p>\n
tion”  is  defined as the use of lands for  the\t purpose  of
\nagriculture or horticulture.  It further defines the  phrase
\n“to cultivate personally” as meaning “to cultivate on  one’s
\nown account” specifying in how many different ways a  person
\ncould  be  said so to do, and a “cultivating  tenant”  as  a
\nperson\twho  cultivates\t personally any\t land  belonging  to
\nanother\t under\tan agreement, express or implied,  and\tpays
\nrent  therefore\t in cash or kind or derives a share  of\t the
\nprofit.\t By s. 3, the proprietary rights, title and interest
\nof  every  proprietor in or in respect of all lands  in\t his
\nvillage\t or  villages were extinguished and  vested  in\t the
\nGovernment,  free from all encumbrances etc., any  contract,
\ngrant or document or any law for the time being in force  to
\nthe  contrary, notwithstanding.\t Section 4, however,  saved,
\nsubject\t  to  other  provisions,  to  the   proprietor\t his
\nhomestead,   buildings,\t  structures  together\t with\tland
\nappurtenant thereto in the occupation of the proprietor\t and
\nalso  lands  under  his\t personal  cultivation,\t not   being
\npastures or grass lands.  By s. 7, cultivating tenants,\t who
\nhad  been evicted from any land after the 1st  April,  1954,
\nwere restored to possession if the proprietor was personally
\ncultivating  those  lands on December 20, 1961\tprovided  an
\napplication  was made in that behalf on or  before  December
\n31,  1962.  ‘After the appointed day all proprietors  became
\noccupants  of  the land.  So also the  cultivating  tenants.
\nCompensation  was payable to the proprietors  whose  rights,
\ntitle  and  interest  in respect of their  lands  vested  in
\nGovernment  and\t it  was stated to be 20  times\t the  annual
\npayment\t (Contribuicao\tPredial) which\tthe  proprietor\t was
\nliable\t to   pay  to  the  former   Portuguese\t  Government
\nimmediately before December 20,1961. The other provisions of
\nthe Regulation need not detain us because they lay down\t the
\nmachinery for giving effect to these fundamental changes.
\nWe  are concerned with five petitioners.  The petitioner  in
\nWrit  Petition\t148  of 1962 purchased in  auction  a  whole
\nvillage\t Regunvara  for Rs. 50,051 in 1930.  The  sale\tdeed
\nstated that the village was sold for purpose of cultivation.
\nIt contained on the date appointed under the Regulation, 320
\nacres  of cultivable land (180 cultivated by the  petitioner
\nand 140 by his tenants), 14 acres roads etc., 91 acres grass
\nlands and 20 acres public pastures.  The annual payment\t was
\nRs.  342 – 66 and the petitioner claims that his income\t was
\nRs.  10,000  per  year.\t In Writ Petition 149  of  1962\t the
\nvillage\t of Dundorta was granted to the predecessor of\tthat
\npetitioner.  It contains 1,300 acres of land and the  annual
\npayment\t is  Rs. 1,190 which was made up of Rs.\t 532  annual
\npayment (Contribuicao Predial) and Rs. 600 and odd as  rent.
\nIt contains some salt lands and salt pans, hill lands and  a
\nstone  quarry.\tIn Writ Petition 233 of 1962 village  Dholer
\nDhonoly was purchased for Rs. 35,525\/- at a public  auction.
\nIt  contains 190 acres of land of which 75 acres  are  paddy
\nlands and 15 acres gardens.  The annual payment was Rs.\t 325
\nwhich was made up of Rs. 232
\n606<\/span>
\nannual\tcontribution and Rs. 93 rent.  In Writ Petition\t 238
\nof 1962 the village Varacunda is held by two brothers.\t The
\narea  of the land is 360 acres of which 140 acres are  under
\ncultivation, 100 acres are salt lands and pans, 30 acres are
\nhills and quarries, 50 acres are abadi, 30 acres are covered
\nby babool trees and 140 acres are with tenants.\t The  annual
\npayment was Rs. 1,988.68 and the annual income is said to be
\nRs.  9,000.   Writ  Petition 216 of  1963  concerns  village
\nCatria\tMoray which was sold to one Patha in 1876,  who,  in
\nhis turn, sold it to one Cowasjee in the same year.  It\t has
\nsince  passed by succession to the present petitioner.\t The
\narea is 963 acres of which 863 are under cultivation and 100
\nacres  are  included  in  Daman\t Municipality.\t The  yearly
\npayment is Rs. 1,221.50.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners have challenged the Regulation under  Arts.
\n14,  19 and 31 of the Constitution.  It is hardly  necessary
\nto  specify  the  grounds on which  the\t challenge  proceeds
\nbecause\t the Union Government claims that the Regulation  is
\nprotected  by Art. 31 A of the Constitution.  That  article,
\nas  is\twell-known,  has been amended more  than  once\twith
\nretrospective  effect and at present reads as follows  after
\nomitting portions not relevant here :-\n<\/p>\n
“31-A.\tSaving of laws providing for acquisition of estates,
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in article  13,  no
\nlaw providing for\n<\/p>\n
(a)  the  acquisition by the State of any estate or  of\t any
\nrights therein or the extinguishment or modification of\t any
\nsuch rights, or
\nshall  be  deemed  to  be void on  the\tground\tthat  it  is
\ninconsistent  with,  or takes away or abridges\tany  of\t the
\nrights conferred by article 14, article 19 or article 31
\n(2) In this    article, –\n<\/p>\n
(a) the\t  expression ‘estate’ shall, in relation to
\nany local area, have the same meaning as that expression  or
\nits  local  equivalent has in the existing law\trelating  to
\nland tenures in force in that area and shall also include-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and  in
\nthe States of Madras and Kerala, any janmam right;\n<\/p>\n
607<\/span><\/p>\n
.lm15\n<\/p>\n
(ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  any  land held or let for purposes of\t agriculture
\nor  for purposes ancillary there to, including\twaste  land,
\nforest\tland,  land for pasture or sites  of  buildings\t and
\nother\tstructures   occupied  by   cultivators\t  of   land,
\nagricultural labourers and village artisans ;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  the expression ‘rights’ in relation to an estate, shall
\ninclude any rights vesting in a proprietor,  sub-proprietor,
\nunder-proprietor,  tenure-holder,  raiyat,  under-raiyat  or
\nintermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land
\nrevenue.”\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Attorney General claims that  the\t proprietary
\ninterest abolished by the Regulation was (a) “estate” or (b)
\n“a  jagir,  inam or muafi or other similar  grant”,  or\t (c)
\n“land  held or let for purposes of agriculture\tor  purposes
\nancillary  thereto”  including the lands as  stated  in\t the
\ndefinition of “estate” in the Constitution.  The other\tside
\njoins  issue  but concedes that if  the\t interest  abolished
\nanswers the definition of “Estate” then the challenge  under
\nArts.  14,  19\tand 31 must fail.   We\thave,  therefore  to
\nconsider  first if the interest abolished by the  Regulation
\ncomes within the compendious definition of “estate” in\tArt.
\n3 1 -A inserted by the Constitution (Seventeenth  Amendment)
\nAct from the inauguration of the Constitution.\tNext we have
\nto  consider whether the Regulation is a piece\tof  agrarian
\nreform.\t  Justification\t for abolition of estates  has\tbeen
\nheld by this Court to involve agrarian reform in the  public
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
In attempting to determine whether the proprietary  interest
\ncan  be regarded as an estate or its equivalent in  relation
\nto  land tenures in force in Daman we are required to  enter
\ninto  the scheme of Revenue Administrative law\texisting  in
\nthe  District  of  Daman on December  20,  1961.   The\tword
\n“estate”  a-, such has not been used in any of the  laws  in
\nthat territory and that disposes of one limb of the enquiry.
\nWe  have to see only whether there was in Portuguese law  in
\nforce in Daman any other tenure which can be said to be\t its
\nequivalent.   On  an earlier occasion this Court  felt\tsome
\ndifficulty  in\tfinding out the appropriate laws  and  their
\ntrue nature and by an order made in February 1964,  fourteen
\npoints\twere remitted to the Judicial Commissioner, Goa\t who
\nwas  to examine experts and to forward the record  of  their
\nevidence to this Court for consideration.  After this remand
\ntwo witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and
\ntwo  on behalf of the State.  These witnesses also  produced
\nsome  Portuguese Legislative Enactments with their  official
\ntranslations and gave their respective
\n608<\/span>
\ninterpretations\t of those laws.\t The interpretation so\tmade
\nby  them is contradictory.  We have, however, not  found  it
\nnecessary  to  rely  upon oral\ttestimony  because,  in\t our
\nopinion,  an examination of the laws in question renders  it
\nunnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
There are only two legislative measures which are  relevant.
\nThe  first is Legislative Enactment No. 1785 of\t 1896  which
\nwas modified by the Legislative Enactment No. 1791 of  1958.
\nThis   Enactment  is  known  as\t the  Contribuicao   Predial
\nRegulation.    The  other  Legislative\tEnactment   is\t the
\nPortuguese Civil Code of which only a few relevant  articles
\nwere  considered at the hearing.  The  Contribuicao  Predial
\nRegulation  is divided into three titles which\tcontain\t 177
\narticles  between  them.   The first  title  describes\tCon-
\ntribuicao  Predial  in\tgeneral,  the  second  the  Conjoint
\nContribuicao   Predial\tand  the  third\t Urban\tand   Rustic
\nContribuicao  Predial.\t By this Legislative  Enactment\t all
\nincome\t of  immovable\tproperty,  whatever   its   modality
\n(including  even  incidental income), unless  exempted,\t was
\nsubjected to an annual payment (Contribuicao Predial).\t The
\nproperty  itself was considered to be under a  hypothecation
\nfor  the  amount which had to be paid  punctually  into\t the
\nRevenue Office.\t For the purpose of the imposition the\tpro-
\nperties\t were  divided into ‘three kinds (a)  Bonjoint,\t (b)
\nurban and (c) rustic.  The Conjoint Contribuicao Predial was
\nimposed on normal presumable income derived by\tagricultural
\ncorporations   (Communidades)\tfrom   immovable    property
\nirrespective  of the nature of the beneficiaries or  of\t the
\nincome.\t  The  taxable income from Conjoint  property  might
\nhave been derived as rent properly speaking or as foro or as
\nlicence\t fee  for  hunting  or\tfishing,  or  from  sale  of
\nagricultural  and  forest  produce or from  working  of\t the
\nquarries, gravelpit or limestone, but it made no  difference
\nwhat  the source was except in cases in which a\t mining\t tax
\nwas   levied.\t As  we\t are  not  concerned   either\twith
\nCommunidades  or with conjoint property enjoyed by them,  we
\nneed not refer further to this kind of property.
\nThe Urban Contribuicao Predial fell on the normal persumable
\nincome from building lots including buildings, the amount of
\nincome\tbeing  determined by valuation\tprincipally  on\t the
\nbasis\tof   rents.    However,\t  buildings   situated\t for
\nagricultural  exploitation but not  including  constructions
\nused  for purposes other than the exploitation of the  soil,
\nwere  exempt.\tRustic Contribuicao Predial fell  on  normal
\npresumable  income  from  rustic  properties  or  from\t any
\nintegral part of the same.  This income was also  determined
\nby  valuation.\t Article  6  described,\t what  were  to\t  be
\nconsidered as rustic properties and provided as follows :-
\n“(a)  The  lands  destined  to\tany  cultivation  or  forest
\nexploitation, including the house constructions existing  in
\nit specially destined to shelter labourers
\n\t\t\t    609<\/span>
\nor   employees\t and  produce,\t cattle\t  and\tagricultural
\nimplements;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  The  lands and building constructions destined  to\t any
\ncattle-breeding\t exploitation  with or without\tstabling  of
\nanimals;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  The lands destined for any exploitation such as quarry,
\ngravelpit or limestone, but with exclusion of salt-works  in
\ncase the owner pays ‘contribuicao industrial’ for them;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  The  lands granted for playing grounds, gardens or\t any
\nrecreations  provided that not to be considered as a  simple
\nfree  ground near a house or as lands destined\tto  building
\nhouses,\t in accordance with what is laid down in clause\t (d)
\nof article five”.\n<\/p>\n
There  were sixteen classes of properties which were  exempt
\nbut  as, none covers the villages of the petitioners  it  is
\nnot  necessary\tto  specify  them.   Properties\t which\twere
\njointly\t urban and rustic were liable to tax for the  income
\nderived\t from  each source but so as not  to  impose  double
\ntaxation.   In the case of leasehold properties\t the  lessor
\n(unless the State was the lessor) was taxed by the amount of
\nthe foro (rent) and the lessee on his income less the  foro.
\nIn  case of leases for more than 20 years the  property\t was
\ntaxed  on  the\tamount of the rent and\tthe  lessee  on\t the
\ndifference  between the amount of the rent and\tthe  taxable
\nincome.\t Separate inventories were maintained and  composite
\nrustic\tand  urban  properties were  included  in  both\t the
\ninventories but were taxed only once.  There was a permanent
\nCommittee of Valuation of rustic properties.  Registers were
\nmaintained which showed the name, the situation and the area
\nof  the\t property, the taxable income, the foros  and  other
\nperpetual  charges, the gross income in kind or\t money,\t the
\naverage\t produce,  the\tpercentage  of\texpenses,  the\t un-
\ncultivated lands and names and addresses of tenants for long
\nperiods and the rents paid by them.  The taxable income\t was
\ndetermined  by\tclassification\tof  land  according  to\t its\n<\/p>\n
-agricultural\tutilisation,   spontaneous   products\t and
\ncircumstances  of  a permanent character.   Even  periodical
\nincome\tfrom scattered trees was taken into account.   There
\nwere sub-divisions of these classifications and schedules of
\nincome from each class or sub-class were maintained.   Lands
\nnot used for cultivation were also assessed on their  normal
\nproductivity  emphasis being laid both on the  quantity\t and
\nquality\t of  production,  the  standard\t being\ttaken\tfrom
\n“pattern”  plots  and “pattern” trees.\t The  classification
\nheld good for a period’ of five years at a time.  There were
\nalso  provisions  for  remissions  but\tforms,\tcensus\t and
\npensions  were not annulled or decreased.  The\tContribuicao
\nPredial in all three cases–conjoint, urban and
\n610<\/span>
\nrustic-was 12 per cent of the total income calculated by the
\napplication of a global percentage.\n<\/p>\n
So much for the Contribuicao Predial Regulation.  The  other
\nLegislative Enactment to refer is the Portuguese Civil Code.
\nAs already stated we were referred to a few of the  articles
\nfrom that Code.\t They dealt with different kinds of  leases.
\nThese  leases were known as ’emprazamento’, ‘aforamento’  or
\n‘enfiteuse’  and came into existence when the  use  (dominio
\nutil) was given by the proprietor to another on condition of
\npaying\ta  fixed  pension  called  a  foro  or\tcanon.\t The
\nenfiteuse  was\tperpetual  but if a term  was  specified  it
\nbecame\t a  tenancy  (arrendamento).   The   emphyteuta\t  or
\nsubemphyteuta  holding an emprazamento or a  subemprezamemto
\n(as  the  case may be) of a duration of more than  20  years
\ncould  obtain  “redemption” by paying 20 times\tthe  pension
\ntogether   with\t any  appreciation  in\t value\t (laundemio)
\ndeducting  however  the foro.\tSimilarly,  a  subemphyteuta
\ncould  redeem  the  charge of the emphyteuta  and  the\thead
\nlessor\t(senhorio directo) : the head-lessor  receiving\t the
\nforo with laudemio which the emphyteuta was bound to pay him
\nand  the emphyteuta receiving the value of the free  pension
\nto  which  the\thead-lessor was not  entitled.\t The  prazos
\n(leases)  which were hereditary alloidal property Could\t not
\nbe  divided into plots unless the head lessor  agreed.\t But
\nthe  heirs could apportion and divide the income among\tthem
\naccording to their shares.  If no heir wanted it, the  lease
\nwas  sold  and the proceeds were similarly  divided.   If  a
\nleasehold  was\tdivided among heirs each became\t a  seperate
\nlease and the respective foro was payable by each.  All this
\nneeded the written consent of the head lessor otherwise\t the
\noriginal  lease continued and each part was liable  for\t the
\nwhole ofthe foro. At first the prazos were for life or for
\ntwo or three livesbeat by the Code all prazos of all kinds
\nwere  made  purely heriditary and all prazos then  took\t the
\ncharacter of ‘fateusis’.  The properties involved here\thave
\nbeen  sufficiently  described  already.\t  The  question\t  is
\nwhether we can regard them as ‘estates’.\n<\/p>\n
The  word ‘estate’ has been considered in a number of  cases
\nof this Court dealing with the land laws of different States
\nand observations from those cases were presented before\t Lis
\nby  the\t respective parties to show an\tequivalence  or\t the
\nabsence\t of it.\t This was in any event the only course\topen
\nto the learned Attorney General because the word ‘estate’ is
\nnowhere\t to  be found in the Legislative Enactments  or\t the
\nCivil  Code.  Support, therefore, had to be found by  trying
\nto   establish\tan  equivalence\t between   estate   properly
\nunderstood  and\t the nature of the right enjoyed  under\t the
\nPortuguese  law.  It is clear to us that this has  not\tbeen
\nsuccessfully  established.   To begin with  an\t‘estate’  in
\nIndian revenue law ordinarily means land which is separately
\nassessed to land revenue under a single entry in a Record of
\nRight and such land is held under a tenure.  At
\n611<\/span>
\none end of the line such land may be a whole village or even
\na  group of villages and at the other it may be a part of  a
\nvillage\t or  even a mere holding.  Thus in  Sri\t Ram  Narain
\nMedhi v. The State of Bombay<\/a>(‘), relying upon the definition
\nin  s.\t2(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code  of  1879\teven
\nunalienated  lands were held to be estates.  The  definition
\nof  “estate” as “any interest in lands and the aggregate  of
\nsuch  interests vested in a person or aggregate\t of  persons
\ncapable\t of holding the same” was held to apply\t equally  to
\nalienated  as  well  as unalienated lands.   That  case\t was
\nfollowed and applied in Shri Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe  Yavatmal
\nv.  The State of Bombay<\/a>(2) because the Madhya  Pradesh\tLand
\nRevenue\t Code,\t1954 (2 of 1955) defined a  “holding”  as  a
\nparcel\tof  land  separately assessed to  land\trevenue\t and
\n“tenure-holder”\t as  a\tperson\tholding\t as  Bhumiswami\t  or
\nBhumidar.  In other words, Bhumiswamis, who included persons
\nholding lands as occupants in Berar were held to be  estate-
\nholders\t because they held land and paid land  revenue.\t  In
\nAtma  Ram v. State of Punjab(3) the definition of  “holding”
\nin  s. 3(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 as “a  share
\nor portion of an estate held by one landowner or jointly  by
\ntwo  or more landowners” was held sufficient to attract\t the
\nprotection of Art. 31-A.\n<\/p>\n
However,  in  K. K. Kochuni & Ors. v. State  of\t Madras\t and
\nothers<\/a>(4)  the\tMadras Marumakkathayam (Removal\t of  Doubts)
\nAct,  1955  (32\t of 1955) was not held to  come\t within\t the
\nprotection  of\tArt.  31-A as it  did  not  contemplate\t any
\nagrarian  reform or seek to regulate the rights inter se  of
\nlandlords  and\ttenants or modify or extinguish any  of\t the
\nrights\tappertaining to janman rights.\tIt was\tpointed\t out
\nthat  Art. 31-A was concerned with a landtenure which  could
\nbe  described  as  an  estate  and  with  the\tacquisition,
\nextinguishment\tor  modification of the rights of  the\tland
\nholders or subordinate tenure-holders.\tIt was stated at  p.
\n904 that Sri Ram Narain’s(1) and Atmaram’s(3) cases did\t not
\nsupport\t  the\tcontention  that  Art.\t 31-A\tcomprehended
\nmodification  of  the  rights of an owner  of  land  without
\nreference to the law of landtenures.\n<\/p>\n
The  above exposition was accepted in P. Vajravelu  Mudaliar
\nv.  Special  Deputy Collector, Madras & Anr.<\/a>(5)\t and  N.  B.
\nJeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana Prant, Thana<\/a>(6) and
\nalso  in  passing  in Ranjit Singh and others  v.  State  of
\nPunjab\tand  others(7)\talthough in the last  case  a  wider
\nmeaning to the expression agrarian reform was given.\n<\/p>\n
     (1) [1959] 1 Supp. S.C.R. 489.(2) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 733.
\n     (3) [1959] 1 Supp. S.C.R. 748.(4) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887.
\n     (5) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614. (6) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 636.
\n(7)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 82.\n<\/p>\n
612<\/span><\/p>\n
It  will  thus\tbe  clear that before  an  ‘estate’  or\t its
\nequivalent  can be found there must be land which pays\tland
\nrevenue\t and is held in -accordance with a law\trelating  to
\nland  tenures.\t The lands with which we  are  concerned  in
\nthese petitions cannot be said to be held in this way.\t Nor
\ncan  they  be  said  to pay land  revenue  as  such.   Daman
\nDistrict, as we have seen, had several kinds of land.  There
\nwere perpetual and period leases from Government.   Villages
\nand lands were sold or were granted for life or lives  which
\nlater  became  hereditary  possessions.\t  This\tmade  little
\ndifference,  in so far as Government was concerned,  because
\nthere was neither a tenure nor payment of land revenue.\t  No
\ncondition on which the land was held could properly be\tsaid
\nto  be\ta  condition  denoting tenure  and  the\t payment  to
\nGovernment was either rent or a percentage of the presumable
\nincome\tfrom  land.   As all lands belonged  to\t the  Crown,
\nPortuguese  law\t contemplated only three kinds\tof  ,dealing
\nwith the land : (a) grant of a permanent lease, (b) grant of
\na  period  lease,  and (c) sale.  There\t was  no  difference
\nbetween land revenue and a tax on income whether of urban or
\nagricultural  property\tand  the tax was  in  every  case  a
\npercentage   of\t  the  income.\t In  our   jurisdiction\t  we
\ndistinguish between land revenue and agricultural income-tax
\nand if any resemblance is to be found, it exists on the side
\nof agricultural income-tax.  The holders were paying a\tkind
\nof  income-tax which only distantly resembled  land  revenue
\nsuch as we know.  Even if it be regarded as land revenue  it
\nis  -clear  enough  that there was no law  of  land  tenures
\nbecause\t all the property, urban or agricultural,  was\theld
\nalike  on  lease or as owner by\t purchase.   The  expression
\n“estate”  thus cannot be said to have had an  equivalent  in
\nDaman District.\n<\/p>\n
This  is  not  the end of the  matter.\t The  definition  of
\n“estate” in Art. 31-A is also an inclusive one and  includes
\nthree other entities.  We shall consider the first two\tnow.
\nThe  definition includes, firstly, any jagir, inam or  muafi
\nor  other similar grant, and, secondly, any land held  under
\nryotwari settlement.  The second need not detain us  because
\nthere  was  no\tryotwari  settlement  or  tenure  in   Daman
\nDistrict.   The\t first, however, deserves  some\t notice.   A
\njagir  was defined by Baden Powell as an assignment  of\t the
\nland  revenue of a territory for a specific service with  or
\nwithout right in the soil and an “inam” as a holding free or
\npartially  free from land revenue with a right in  the\tland
\nalso.  (See Land System in British India Vol.  1 p. 189\t and
\nVol.  3\t pp. 81 and 140).  There were  in  Portuguese  India
\nDesai Inams which were regulated by the Desai Regulation  of
\n1880  but  the\tDesai Regulation did  not  apply  in  Daman.
\nDecree\tNo. 3612 of 1917 for Goa, Daman and Diu\t dealt\twith
\nconcessions  of lands which, as one witness described,\twere
\nsimilar\t to grants contemplated by Art. 31-A.  The  question
\nis  whether any of the villages in the petitions  before  us
\ncan be des-\n<\/p>\n
613<\/span><\/p>\n
cribed as a grant so that the action taken against them\t can
\ncome  within  the protection of the Article.  Judged  of  in
\nthis sense the sales of Regunvara and Dholer Dhonoly  cannot
\nbe  called a jagir, inam or similar grant.  They  were\tpure
\nsales of immovable property without the element of grant  or
\nconcession.  There was, however, a difference in respect  of
\nVaracunda.  Here the village was conferred in grant for\t the
\nupkeep\tof one Arab horse.  It is well-known that in  Moghul
\ntimes grants were made for the upkeep of a certain number of
\nhorsemen  and the idea underlying this grant appears  to  be
\nthe  same although the condition of service was made a\tmere
\ntoken.\tThis grant was to be resumed after the third life in
\nsuccession but by the Code the period lease was made  perma-
\nnent.  The words of the article “any jagir, inam or muafi or
\nother  similar\tgrant”\twould presumably  cover\t this  grant
\nalthough  there\t does not appear to be a concession  in\t the
\nmatter\tof  land revenue as such.  It appears to be  a\tpure
\nservice\t grant\twithout any concession except the  right  to
\nhold the village for three lives.  Although the words “other
\nsimilar\t grant” must be construed ejusdem generis  with\t the
\nwords  “jagir,\tinam and muafi” and the generic\t terms\tthat
\nprecede indicate a concession of some kind in land  revenue,
\nwe  are\t not  quite clear that Varacunda  was  not  held  on
\nconfessional terms.  If it was, then the action against this
\nvillage would definitely be protected by Art. 31 -A.  On the
\nevidence  there\t is some difficulty in reaching\t a  definite
\nconclusion although all the indications are that the village
\nwas a grant.\n<\/p>\n
There  is,  however, the last clause in\t the  definition  of
\nestate\tto  consider and that clause says that in  the\tword
\n“estate” must be included “any land held or let for purposes
\nof  agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto  including
\nwaste  land,  forest  land, land for  pasture  or  sites  of
\nbuildings  and other structures occupied by  cultivators  of
\nland, agricultural labourers and village artisans”.  All the
\nvillages  with\twhich  we are  concerned  were\tagricultural
\nvillages.  Regunvara was sold for encouraging cultivation as
\nthe  sale  deed expressly says so.   Similar  considerations
\nattached  to  the  other villages whether  granted  for\t the
\nupkeep\tof  a  horse as was the grant of  Varacunda  or\t for
\nsettlement  of weavers and artisans in Daman District as  in
\nsome other cases.  As a village must be considered a  single
\nunit notwithstanding the fact that the sale deeds and  other
\ndocuments mentioned plots we must consider whether the lands
\nin  the villages can come within the  inclusive\t definition.
\nThat they do is inescapable because the bulk of the land  in
\nall  the villages of which the proprietorship was  with\t the
\nseveral\t petitioners  was either devoted to  agriculture  or
\npastures.  Attempt was, however, made before us to show that
\ncertain parts of the villages did not answer the  definition
\nof  ‘estate’  as extended by the third clause  and  specific
\nmention\t was  made of salt pans,  gravelpits,  quarries\t and
\nkills.\tOn the other side it was contended
\n614<\/span>
\nthat  the concept of rustic property in Daman was such\tthat
\neven  quarries\tand  uncultivated  lands  were\theld  to  be
\nincluded  in  it.  The Legislative  Enactment  dealing\twith
\nContribuicao Predial was referred to show that quarries\t and
\nuncultivated land including pastures were equally considered
\nrustic\tproperty.  There is, however, no mention of salt  pa
\ns, but these, it was submitted, would be included in  rustic
\nproperty  unless  Contribuicao\tIndustrial  was\t payable  in
\nrespect of them, and that there was no evidence in the\tcase
\nthat  Industrial  Contribuicao Predial was  being  paid\t for
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
The  definition\t of “land” in s. 2(g) of the  Regulation  is
\nwider  than  the  definition of “estate”  in  Art.  31-A  as
\nintroduced  by the Seventeenth Amendment.  The\tquestion  is
\nwhether\t we can use the definition of land as including\t all
\ncategories of land in the teeth of the restricted definition
\nof  “estate”.\tIn our opinion we cannot.  One\tside  relies
\nupon  the decision of this Court in Romesh Thaper’s  case(‘)
\nin which at page 603 it is observed as follows :-
\n“.  …Where a law purports to authorise the  imposition  of
\nrestrictions on a fundamental right in language wide  enough
\nto cover restrictions both within and without the limits  of
\nconstitutionally  permissible legislative  action  affecting
\nsuch  right, it is not possible to uphold it even so far  as
\nit may be applied within the constitutional limits, as it is
\nnot  severable.\t  So long as the possibility  of  its  being
\napplied\t for  purposes not sanctioned  by  the\tConstitution
\ncannot\tbe  ruled  out,\t it  must  be  held  to\t be   wholly
\nunconstitutional and void.”\n<\/p>\n
The  other  side  relies  upon the  decision  in  R.  M.  D.
\nChamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India<\/a>(2) where the  doctrine
\nof  severability  was explained by Mr.\tJustice\t Venkatarama
\nAyyar.\t In  the last cited case seven principles  are\tlaid
\ndown on which a provision of law at variance in part with  a
\nconstitutional provision (including a Fundamental Right) may
\nbe allowed to stand in respect of the remaining part, if the
\noffending part can be severed from it without affecting\t its
\noperation.   The  principle  of severability  is  thus\tmade
\napplicable  to\tlaws enacted by\t Legislatures  with  limited
\npower  which  are  partly  within  and\tpartly\toutside\t the
\nlegislative competency of a Legislature.  It is pointed\t out
\nthat there is no basis for the contention that the principle
\napplies\t only  when the Legislature exceeds  its  powers  as
\nregards\t the subject-matter of the legislation and not\twhen
\nit   contravenes  a  constitutional   prohibition.    Romesh
\nThapar’s(l)  case  was distinguished in the same way  as  in
\nState of Bombay v. F. N. Bulsara<\/a>(3).  The resulting position
\nis stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1950] S.C.R. 594.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (3) [1951] S.C.R. 682.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1957] SCR 930.\n<\/p>\n
615<\/span><\/p>\n
.lm15
\n“When  a  statute is in part void, it will  be\tenforced  as
\nregards the rest, if that is severable from what is invalid.
\nIt  is immaterial for the purpose of this rule\twhether\t the
\ninvalidity of the statute arises by reason of its  ‘subject-
\nmatter being outside the competence of the legislature or by
\nreason\t of  its  provisions   contravening   constitutional
\nprohibitions.”\n<\/p>\n
The  question  again arose in  The  Superintendent,  Central
\nPrison\tFatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia<\/a> (1), where,  the\t two
\ndifferent  approaches  were  noticed  but  no  opinion\t was
\nexpressed  because the section then considered could not  be
\nsaved even after removing the offending portion.
\nIn addition to Chamarbaugwalla’s case(2) the learned  Attor-
\nney  General  also  drew our attention to In  Re  the  Hindu
\nWomen’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, and the Hindu  Women’s
\nRight  to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938 etc.()\t and  Punjab
\nProvince  v. Daulat Singh and OtherS(4). In the former\tcase
\nGwyer  C. J. lays down that there is a presumption that\t the
\nLegislature  intends  to act within its powers\tand  general
\nwords  used  by it must only be understood  as\tintended  to
\noperate within its powers, and that the Legislature in using
\ngeneral\t  words\t does  not  seek  to  enlarge  its   powers.
\nLimitations,  therefore, must be found out and\tthe  general
\nwords  read  so as to apply within the four corners  of\t the
\nLegislature’s powers.\n<\/p>\n
The  difficulty\t in  the  present  case\t is  that  all\t the
\nconstitutional\tamendments  have  come\twith   retrospective
\neffect.\t  The Seventeenth Amendment replaces Art.  31A\twith
\nmodifications  retrospectively from 26th January: 1950.\t  It
\nis  not, therefore, possible to read Art. 31A in any  manner
\nother than that indicated by the Seventeenth Amendment.\t  It
\nis  also not possible to say that the President in the\t13th
\nyear  of the Republic of India anticipated  what  Parliament
\nwould introduce retrospectively into the Constitution in the
\n15th year of the Republic.  The President cannot, therefore,
\nbe  said  to have been cognizant of the limits\tof  his\t own
\npower  in 1962 when he made the Regulation and to have\tmade
\nit  accord with the definition of “estate” in Art. 31A.\t  In
\nthis connection it is not possible to compare the definition
\nof “land” in the Regulation with the definition of  “estate”
\nas given in the earlier versions of Art. 31A because by\t the
\nforce  of the Seventeenth Amendment the earlier\t version  of
\nthe  Article completely disappears and may be said  to\thave
\nnever  existed at all.\tThe result, therefore, is  that\t the
\ndefinition  of\t“land” in the Regulation being\tat  variance
\nwith  the definition of “estate” cannot stand with it.\t But
\nas  it is severable it does not affect the operation of\t the
\nRegulation which will operate but the protection of Art. 31-
\nA will not be available in respect
\n(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 821.\t\t\t  (2) [1957]
\nS.C.R. 930.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1941] F.C.R. 12,\t\t\t\t  (4) [1946]\nF.C.R. 1.\np.C.1166-11\n616<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
of land not strictly within the definition of Art. 31-A.  In
\nother words “land” would include not every class or category
\nof  land  but  only  lands  held  or  let  for\tpurposes  of
\nagriculture  or\t for purposes ancillary\t thereto,  including
\nwaste  land, forest land for pastures or sites of  buildings
\nand  other  structures\toccupied  by  cultivators  of  land,
\nagricultural  labourers\t and village artisans.\t Land  which
\n,does  not answer this description is not protected from  an
\nattack\tunder Arts. 14, 19 and 31 and it is from this  point
\nof view that the cases of the petitioners before us must  be
\nexamined where categories of land other than those stated in
\nArts. 31A(2)(a) (iii) are mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
Applying  the  above  considerations to\t the  petitions\t our
\nconclusions are as follows
\nWrit Petition No. 148 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
In  Writ Petition 148 of 1962 the present petitioner is\t the
\noriginal  purchaser of village Regunvara.  The\tvillage\t was
\nsold to him for cultivation and has been put to agricultural
\nuse  as is evident from the fact that out of the  334  acres
\n320 are cultivated.  The remaining 14 acres represent  roads
\netc.  In this state of affairs it is clear that the  village
\nwill fall within the definition of an “estate” as  explained
\nby us above.  Writ Petition 148 of 1962 must therefore fail.
\nIt will be dismissed but without costs.\n<\/p>\n
Writ Petition No. 149 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
This petition concerns village Dundorta.  The present  peti-
\ntioner is the successor-in-interest of the original grantee.
\nThis village contains 152 acres (30 according to Government)
\nof  billy land and stone quarries, 225 acres of\t salt  lands
\nand salt pans (32 acres according to Government).  The\trest
\nof  the\t land is with the tenants.  We would hold  that\t the
\nproprietorship\tof  the village ceases\tand  the  Regulation
\noperates  upon it except in the matter of hilly\t land,\tsalt
\npans and salt lands and quarries.  What is their extent will
\nhave to be determined hereafter.  Compensation for them,  if
\nacquired,  would  have to be assessed and  given  on  consi-
\nderations  other than those in the Regulation.\t With  these
\nobservations we would dismiss this petition also but make no
\norder about costs.\n<\/p>\n
Writ Petition No. 233 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
In  this  petition  the whole village  was  purchased  at  a
\npublic .auction and it appears that the whole of the land in
\nthe  village  is devoted to  agricultural  or  horticultural
\npurposes.    In\t this  view  of\t the  matter  the   extended
\ndefinition covers the village Dholer Dhonoly.  This petition
\nmust,  therefore, fail.\t It will be dismissed  ,but  without
\nany order about costs.\n<\/p>\n
617<\/span><\/p>\n
Writ Petition 238 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
In  this petition we are concerned with\t village  Varacunda.
\nHere  also there are 100 acres of salt lands and  salt\tpans
\n(66  acres according to Government) and 30 acres  of,  hills
\nand  quarries (denied by Government).  What we have said  in
\nconnection  with  village  Dundorta also  applies  here\t and
\nsubject\t to our observations made regarding salt  lands\t and
\npans  and  hills  and  quarries,  the  petition\t will  stand
\ndismissed  but without any order as to costs.
\nWrit Petition No. 216 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
This leaves over for consideration Writ Petition No. 216 of-
\n1963.\tThis  concerns village Catria Moray.   The  original
\nowner purchased it in 1876 and sold it the same year to\t the
\npredecessors  of  the present petitioners.  By\ta  Municipal
\nStatute\t (postura)  of 16th May, 1949  the  Municipality  of
\nDaman  was established and the area of its jurisdiction\t was
\ndetermined.  This involved about 100 acres from the original
\ngrant.\t There\tare  600  houses  including  markets  and  a
\ncemetery  on this area.\t The petitioners contend  that\tthis
\ncannot\tcome within ‘estate’.  The petitioners are right  in
\nthis submission.  It is not possible to include these  areas
\nwithin\tthe  term ‘estate’ because the\tterm  operates\tonly
\naccording  to its tenor and not further.  The Writ  Petition
\n216   of  1963\twill,  therefore,  be  dismissed  with\t the
\ndeclaration  that  the Municipal area does not vest  in\t the
\nGovernment  under  the Regulation and Art. 31A(2)  does\t not
\nlend  its protection to this  expropriation.   Compensation,
\ntherefore, for this part of the land will have to be  asses-
\nsed  on\t considerations\t other\tthan  those  stated  in\t the
\nRegulation.   There  will be no order about  costs  in\tthis
\npetition also.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t    Writ petitions dismissed with directions<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1110, 1967 SCR (1) 602 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V., Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: GULABHAI VALLABHBHAI DESAI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-21T07:28:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T07:28:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\"},\"wordCount\":6214,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\",\"name\":\"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T07:28:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-21T07:28:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966","datePublished":"1966-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T07:28:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966"},"wordCount":6214,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966","name":"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T07:28:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabhai-vallabhbhai-desai-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-september-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulabhai Vallabhbhai Desai Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}