A. P. KRISHNASAMI NAIDU ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 09-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
lrlarch 9 
82 
SUPREJ\IE COURT REPORTS 
A. P. KRISHNASAMI NAIDU ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
(With connected Petitions) 
[J 964] 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. SIKR!, JJ.J 
Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 
1961 (Mad. 58 of 1961) ss. 5(1), 50-Provisions for land ceiling and 
compensation-If violative of Art. 14--Constitution. of India, 
Arts. 14, 19, 31(2). 
The constitutionality of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation 
of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 was attacked on the ground that it 
violated Arts. 14, 19, 31 (2) of the Constitution. 
Held (i) The provisions of s. 5(1) of the Act result' in discri-
mination between persons equally circumstanced and are thu& 
violative of Art .. 14 of the Constitution. As this section is the 
basis of Chapter II of the Act, the whole chapter must fall along 
with it. 
The ratio of Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala [1962] 
Supp. 1 S.C.R 829 applies with full force to the present case. 
(ii) The provisions in s. 50 read with Sch. III of the Act 
with respect to compensc.tion are discriminatory and violate 
Art. 14 of the Constitut'on. 
Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala [1962] Supp. l 
S.C.R 829, followed. 
(iii) Ss. 5 'and 50 are the pivotal provisions of the Act, and 
as they fall, the whole Act must be struck down as unconstitu-
tional. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions 1, 7, 8, 10, 53 and 
76 of 1963. 
Petitions under Art 32 of the Constitution of India for 
the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
R. V. S. Mani and K. R. Shama, for the petitioner (in 
W.P. Nos. 1 and 76 of 1963). 
R. V. S. Mani and T. R. V. Sastri, for the petitioner (in 
W.P. Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 53). 
A. V. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam. for the 
respondent (in the petitions). 
I. N. Shroff, for the interveners Nos. I and 5 (in all the 
petitions). 
M. C. Setalvad, N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for inter-
vener No. 2 (in W.P. No. I of 1963). 
C. P. Lal, for intervener N·o. 3 (in W.P. No. 1 of 1963). 
R. H. Dhebar, for intervener No. 4 (in W.P. No. 1 of ' 
1963). 
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-Genera/, N. S. Bindra 
and R. H. Dhebar, for intervener No. 6 (in W.P. No. 1 of 
1963). 
1 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
83 
March 9, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
by 
WANCHOO, J.-These six petitions under Art. 32 of 
Constitution raise a common question about the con~titution
. ality of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land 
Act, No. 58 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which 
was assented to by the President on April 13, 1962 and came 
into force on publication in the Fort. St. George Ga1.ette on 
May 2. 1962. The constitutionality of the Act is attacked on 
the ground that it violates Arts. 14, 19 and 31(2) of the Consti-
tution. It is not necessary to set out in full the attack made on 
the constitutionality of the Act in these petitions. It will be 
enough if we indicate the two main attacks on the constitu-
tionality of the Act under Art. 14. The first of these is with 
respect to s. 5 of the Act which lays down the cejling area. The 
second is on s. 50 of the Act read with Sch. III thereof, which 
provides for compensation. It is urged that the Act is not 
protected under Art. 31-A of the Constitution and is t~erefore 
open to attack in case it violates Art. 14, 19 or 31. The peti-
tioners in this connection rely on the judgment of tliis Court in 
Karimbil Kwihikoman v. State of Kera/a('). 
Before we consider the two main attacks on the constitu-
tionality of the Act we may briefly indicate the scheme of the 
Act. Chapter I is preliminary, Section 3 thereof provides for 
various definitions, some of which we shall refer to later. 
Chapter II deals with fixation of ceiling on land holdings. 
Section 5 thereof fixes the ceiling area. The other sections 
provide for determining surplus land, and s.18 provides for the 
acquisition of surplus land which vests in the Government free 
from all encumbrances. Chapter III provides for ceiling on 
future acquisition and restriction on. certain transfers. Chapter 
IV provides for the constitution and functions of the land 
board. Chapter V provides for the constitution and functions 
of the sugar factory board. Chapter VI provides for compen-
sation. Section 50 thereof read with Sch. III lays down the 
mode for determining compensation for the land acquired by 
the ~overnment and other ancillary matters. Chapter VII 
proV1des for su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.