JAGANNATH ETC. ETC. versus AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 11-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I! 
• 
G 
• 
1055 
JAGANNATH ETC. ETC. 
V. 
AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS & ORS. ETC. 
October 11, 1971 
[S. M. S!KRl, C.J., J.M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DuA, S. C. ROY, 
D. G. PALEKAR AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 31-B, 39 and Ninth Schedule and 
Seventh Schedule, List I/, entry 18 and List /l/, entry 42 Madras Land 
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961-Struck down as vio· 
!ative of Art,, 14-Act included in Ninth Schedule-Effect on va/idity-
Whe:ther State Legislature cgmpetent to enact the Act. 
The Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961 
was an Act to provide for fixation of ceiling on agricultural land holding; 
and for oortain other matters connected therewith in the State of Madras. 
Its validity. had been challenged by earlier writ petitions filed in this Court 
on the ground that its provisions violated Arts. 14, 19 and 31 (2) of the 
Constitution and this Court held that its pivotal provisions violated Art. 
14 and therefOre struct down the entire Act as unconstitutional. 
Similar 
attacks had been made on several other acts of other States imposing ceil· 
ings on holding of land, and in order to shield these Acts against such 
attacks Parliament passed the Constitution 
(Seventeenth 
Amendment) 
Act, 1964. 
By that amendment several Acts were included in the Ninth 
Schedule to· the Constitution including the Madras Act. The Madras Act 
was again challenged on two grounds; namely (I) the Act having been 
struck down as invalid by this Court it was non est, and was void ab initio 
and Art. 31-B could not validate it without tho State Legislature 
re· 
enacting its provisions, and (2) the Act was incompetent for want of 
legislative power in the. State. 
HELD : Art. 31 -B and the Ninth Schedule as they stooc! after the 
7th amendment must be taken to have cured the defect, if any, in the 
various Acts_ mentioned iri the said Schedule as regards any 
unconstitu-
tionality alleged on the ground 'of infringement of fundamental rights; and, 
by the express words of Art., 31-B such curing of the defect took place· 
with retrospe~ve operation from the dates on which the Acts were put on 
the statute book. 
These Acts, even if void or inoperative ai the time 
.when they were enacted by the reason of infringement of Art. 13(2) of 
the Consti\ution, assumed full fOrce and vigour from the· respective dates 
of their enactment after their inclusion in the Ninth Schedule read with 
Art. 31-B of the Constitution. Besides, the States could not, at any time, 
cure any defect arising from the violation of the prO\isions of Part Ill of 
the Constitution. 
Therefore, the objection that the Madras Act should' 
have been re-enactecl by the Madras Legislature after the Seventeepth 
.Amendment came into force cannot be accepted. [1070 B-E] 
State of Maharashtra v. Pati/chand, [!968] 3 S.C.R. 
712, 
Bhikaji 
Narain Dhakras & Ors. v. Staie of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., [1955] 
2 
S.C.R. 589, M. P. V. Sundararamier & Co. v: Stale of Andhra Pradesh, 
[1958] 
S.C.R. 
1422 .and St11te of UNar Praaesh v. H. H. Maharaja 
Brijendra Singh, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 363, followed . 
Sr.jjan Singh v. State oj Rajasthan, 
[1965] 
1 S.C.R. 
933, 
Behrq. 
Khrushed Pesikaka v. State of Bom/xzy, 
[1955] I S.C.R. 
613, 
Saghir 
.
1056 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 1 S.C.R. 
Ahmed v. State of U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707 and Deep Chand v. State of ·A 
Urtar Pradesh & Ors. [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8, referred to. 
(2) Entry 18 in List II of the Constitution like any other entry in 
the three lists only gives the outline of the subject matter of legislatioi: 
field of legislation governed by the entry is not to be narrowed down in 
and the words in the entry are to be read in their widest amplitude. The 
any way unless there is anything in the entry itself which detines the 
limits thereof. 
Entry 18 is meant to confer the widest powers on the 
State Legislature with regard to rights in or over land and such rights 
are not to be measured by or limited to the rights as between landlords 
and tenants or the collection cf rents. 
The words which follow the ex-
pression 'r~ghts in or over land', in the entry are merely bv way of illus-
tration. 
The specification itself shows that the genus of the rights men-
tioned is not the one which landlords have vis-a-vis their tenants or vice 
versa. 
All kinds of legislation regarding transfers and 
alienations of 
agricultural land which may affect the r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.