Case Law Details
Vinodcharndra Sakarlal Kapadia Vs State of Gujarat (Supreme Court)
Conclusion: An agriculturist could not part his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a Will and the prohibition against transfers of holding without the previous sanction of the concerned authorities was to be seen in that light as furthering the cause of legislation. The legislation and the concerned provisions were completely within the competence of the State Legislature and by placing the construction upon the expression “assignment” to include testamentary disposition, no transgression would ensue.
Held: The issue arose for consideration was to decide as to whether Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Bombay Tenancy Act’) debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a “Will” so also, whether Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act restricts transfer of any land or interest purchased by the tenant under Sections 17B, 32, 32F. 321. 320, 32U, 33(1) or 88E or sold to any person under Section 32P or 64 of the Tenancy Act through the execution of a Will by way of testamentary disposition. It was held that if the provisions referred to in Section 43 of the Act and allied provisions were considered in light of the settled principles, it emerged that the primary concern of those provisions was to see that the legislative scheme of granting protection to persons from disadvantaged categories and conferring the right of purchase upon them, and thereby ensure direct relationship of a tiller with the land. The provisions, though laid down a norm which might not be fully consistent with the principles of Indian Succession Act, were principally designed to attain and sub-serve the purpose of protecting the holdings in the hands of disadvantaged categories. The prohibition against transfers of holding without the previous sanction of the concerned authorities, was to be seen in that light as furthering the cause of legislation. Even if by the process of construction, the expression “assignment” was construed to include testamentary disposition, in keeping with the settled principles, the incidental encroachment could not render the said provisions invalid. In pith and substance, the legislation and the concerned provisions were completely within the competence of the State Legislature and by placing the construction upon the expression “assignment” to include testamentary disposition, no transgression would ensue.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
1. Leave granted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Good information put up by you.