KUNJUKU'TTY SAHIB ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 26-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

326 
KUNJUKU'ITY SAHIB ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
April 26, 1972 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, H. R. KHANNA 
AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Kemln land Reforms Act 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) 
a,· 
amended by 
. the Kera/a !.and Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969-Amending Act not 
put in 9th Schedule to the Constitution-Whether protected by Art. 31-A 
01 Constitution-Validity of s. 73 providing for liquidation of arrears of 
redt--Such arrears ivhether interest in land-JVhetlier 'estate' 
lVithin 
meaning of Art. 31-A-Validity of s.. 
45-A, and of explanation to 
s. 85(1 )-Reduction of ceilinR lin1it under Act-Land above nc1v ceiling 
hut under original ceiling acquired ll'ithout paynient of 11uirket value 
l'Ompe1tration-Validity-Ri1d1ts Rivt'n to Kudikidapp11kars-Validiy of-
1?.iRhts· of landlords vis-a-vfa the tenant, such as quarr_ying ri1:hts, whether 
t:t'SI in Govern1nent under s. 72. 
The Kcrala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as originally 
enacted was specified in the Ninth Schedule to the ConstitutiOn and was 
thus protected under Art. 31-B of the Constitution.. However the subse-
quent amending act namely the Kerala Land 
Reforms (Amendment) 
Act, 1969, was not placed in the Ninth Schedule. The validity of the Act 
as amended was challenged in the High Court in the writ petitions out of 
which the present allJleals arose. 
T~e State relied on Art. 31-A of the 
Constitution. 
The High Court help some of the provisions of the Act 
to be unconstitutional. 
Jn appeal by the State and by so1Pe o[ the writ 
petitioners the questions that fell for determination by this Court were : 
(i) whether arrears of rent being a charge on the interest of the tenant 
under s. 42 of the Act constituted an interest in Jan·a within the 1neanin!! 
of'the word 'estate' as defined ins. 31-A, and consequently whether s. 73-; 
of the Act w,hich provided for the liquidation of arrears of rent was pro-
!ccted by Art. 31-A although held violative of Art. 
19(l)(f) 
of the 
Constitution by the High Court; (ii) whether s. 45-A of the Act was valid 
it being conceded by the parties that its validity depended on that of s. 73; 
(iii) whether the explanation to s. 85 (1) of the, Act was violative of the 
second proviso to Art. 31-A (l); (iv) whether the amended Act when it 
reduced the ceiling limit and xequired surrender of the land held 
in 
excess of the limit fixed by the amended Act, without paym«Jt of com-
oensation at market value, violated the constitutional inhibition containeU 
in the second proviso to Art. 31-A(l); (v) whether the High Court after 
striking down s .. 50-A(2) of the Act was justified in adding the rider that 
the finding would not affect the vesting of the 
landlord's rights in the 
Government if they had so vested under s. 72; (vi) whether the righls 
given to the Kudikidappukars under the Act \Vere a measure of agrarian 
reform even though the definition of 'Kudikidappukaran' in s. 2(25) of 
the Act was not confined to agricultural labourers: and (vii) whether the 
extinguishment or modification of Jand-Jord's rights vis-a-vis the tcnan! 
would also be within the ambit of Art. 31-A of the Constitution. 
HELD-: (i) The argument that arrears of interest is a charge on the 
estate and, being, therefore a right in land, can be extinguished as an 
estate was unacceptable on the language of the impugned statutory pro-
visions. 
The liability to pay arrears of rent under the impugned Act, 
assuming the charge created by s. 42 is an interest in land, is not a 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KUNJUKUTTY v. KERALA (Dua,!.) 
327 
right in land; besides the liability being also a personal liability it would 
clearly amount to a debt, Acquisition or extinguishment of such a personal 
liability for payment of money cannot be covered by Art. 31-A. 
That 
money cannot be acquired is clear 'from the majority view of this Court's 
decision in Kameshwar Singh's case. Looking at the table incorporated in 
s. 73 it is obvious that the amount of rent to be paid for getting discharge 
of the whole debt has been arbitrarily fixed and does not seem to be 
founded on any rational, logical or just basis. [337 E-FJ 
The amelioration of indebtedness of tenants is a laudable and desir-
able object. 
But the person to whom the arrears of rerit lire· due to also 
entitled to seek protection of his legitimate right and if the acquisition 
Of arrears of rent is outside the protection of Art. 31-A then the provi-
si

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