LexI.R. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LR. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 B [S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] Constitution of India: C Articles 3 I A and 31 B-lnsertion of Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 and West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act 1979 in Ninth Schedule to the Constitution-Validity of- Matter referred to larger Bench-Judgments in Waman Rao and Bhim Singh Ji also to be considered by larger Bench. D Waman Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1981) 2 SCR l and Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Sing Ji Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. Etc., (1985) Suppl. 1 SCR 862, referred to. Balmadies v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1973) 1 SCR 258; Holiness E Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kera/a, [1973) Suppl. SCR 1 and Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 1 SCR 206, referred to. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1344-45 of 1976 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.76 of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 4386of1974 and 90of1975. K.N. Rawat, Additional Solicitor General, F.S. Nariman, P.P. Rao, Raju Ramachandran, Shanti Bhushan, R. Mohan, P.H. Parekh, Amit Dhingra, Ms. G Indoo P. Verma, Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt, Rajeev Sharma, Sanjay Hegde, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P. Parmeshwaran, Krishan Mahajan, R.K. Gupta, A. Mariarputham, Ms. ArunaMathur, M. Krishnamurthy, H.V.P. Sharma, R. Nedumaran, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rathin Das, Rajesh and Ejaz Maqbool for the appearing parties. H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 394 - " 1.R. COELHO v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 395 The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) A Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act), insofar as it vested forest lands in the Janmam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu, was struck down by this Court in Balmadies v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1973] 1 SCR 258 because this was not found to be . a measure of agrarian reform protected by Article 3 lA of the Constitution. Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 was struck B down by the Calcutta High Court as being arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional and the special leave petition filed against the judgment by the State of West Bengal was dismissed. By the Constitution (Thirty fourth Amendment) Act, the Janmam Act, in its entirety, was inserted in the Ninth Schedule. By the Constitution (Sixty sixth Amendment) Act, the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, in its entirety, was inserted in the Ninth C Schedule. These insertions are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals and writ petitions. The contention is that these Acts, inclusive of the portions thereof which had been struck down, could not have been validly inserted in the Ninth Schedule. It rests on two counts: ( l) Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution; to insert in the Ninth Schedule an Act which, or D ·part of which, has been struck down as unconstitutional in exercise of the power of judicial review is to destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution. (2) To insert into the Ninth Schedule after 24th April, 1973, an Act which, or part of which, has been struck down as being violative of the fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution is to destroy or damage its basic structure. E Article 31 B provides : "31 B. Validation of certain Acts and Regulations.-Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 3 lA, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of F the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, su~ject to the power of G any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force." The judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in W aman Rao & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1981] 2 SCR 1 dealt with Article 31B. It referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharti, (1973] Suppl. SCR 1, decided on 24th April, 1973, where it was held by the H 396 SUPREME COURT RE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.