KARIMBIL KUNHIKOMAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 05-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

!96J 
K°CTiJUiJ 
K•~itomall 
•• 
Slal1 of Knalo 
S:JO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
Puru•hothaman Nambudiri v. 
Stal< of Kera/a, [1962) 
Supp. I S.C.R. 753, followed. 
(II) The Act which made certain deductions from the 
compensation payable to the landholders under Ch. II and 
to others who 
held excess land under Ch. III cannot be 
struck doY.n as a piece of colourable legislation which is be-
yond the competence of the State Legislature, and it cannot 
be said that any device has been employed in the Act to take 
away the moneys of the landbwners or the versons from whom 
excess land is taken away for the purpose of adding to the 
revenue of the State. 
Section 80 'of the Act provides for the Constitution of an 
agriculturist rehabilitation fund for the purpose of rendering 
help by way of loan, grant or otherwise to persons affected by 
the Act and eligible for the same under the rules but rr. 161 
(a) (III) and 161 (b) (Ill) are so framed as to take within 
their scope even persons not affected by the Act. Those rules 
are ultra viru of s. 80 and must be struck down. 
(Ill) The lands held by ryotwari pattadars in the 
area which came to the State of Kerala by virtue of the 
States Reorganisation Act from the State of Madras are not 
•estates' within the meaning of Art. 31A(2J(a) of the Cons-
titution and therefore the Act is not protected under Art. 31A 
( 1) from attack under Arts. 
14, 19 and 31 of the Cons-
titution. 
State of Bihar v. Ramtahwar Pralap Narain Singh, A.l.R. 
1961 S.C. 1649, referred to. 
(IV) The reasons which call for exemption of tea, 
coffee and rubber plantations. from certain provisions of the 
Act equally apply to areca and pepper plantations and there 
is no intelligible differentia related to the object and purpose 
of the Act which would justify any distinction in the ca•e of 
tea, coffee and rubber plantations as against areca and pep-
per plantation~. The provisions in the Ac.t rc.!ating to planta-
tions are violative of Art. 14 of the Conslltut10n. 
The provisions relating to plantatioru cannot be severed 
from the Act and struck down only by themselves. The whole 
Act must be struck down as violative of Art. 14 of the Cons-
titution so far as it applied to ryotwari fands in those areas 
of the State which were transferred to 1t from the State of 
Madras. 
(V) The manner in which ceiling. has been.fixed. under 
s. 58( l) is violative of the fundament~l r.•ght enshrined m A~t. 
14 of the constitution and as that sect1?n ';8 the basis of entire 
Ch. III the whole chapter must fall with 11; 
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
831 
(IV' The manner in which progressive cuts have been 
imposed on the purchase price under s. 52 and the market 
value under s. 64 in order to determine the compensation pay-
able to lando\vners or intermediaries in one case and to per-
sons from whom excess land is taken in another, results in dis-
crimination and cannot be justified on any intelligible 
differentia which has any relation to the objects and purposes 
of the Act. The provision as to compensation is all pervasive 
and the entire Act must be struck down a• violative of Art. 14 
of the Constitution in its application to ryotwari lands which 
have come to the State of Kerala from the State of Madras. 
Per Sarkar, J .-Sections 52 and 64 of the Act which pro-
vide for payment of Compensation at progressively smaller 
rates for larger valuations of the interests acquired are not in-
valid as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution. The provisions in 
the act making a discrimination in favour of tea, coffee, rubber 
and cardamom plantalion and also in favour of cashew plan-
tations cannot be upheld. Sections 3(viii), 57 (1) (d) and 59 
(2) are therefore invalid. These are however severable from 
the other parts of the Act and the whole Act cannot be held 
to be bad merely because those provisions are bad. 
Per Ayyangar, ].-Properties held on ryotwari tenures 
and the interest of the ryot in such lands would not be "esta-
tes" for the purposes of Art. 31A(2) as it stood even after the 
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. 
Where an existing law in relation to land-tenures in force 
in an area contains a definition of an 'estates' and that defini .. 
tion excludes the interest of a ryotwari proprietor, the very 
words of Art. 3 IA(2) of the Constitution negatived the appli-
cability of its provisions to that tenure. 
Ram R4m Narain Medhi, v. Stale of Bombay, [1959] Supp. 
I S.C.R. 489 and Atma Ram v

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