LexMALANKARA RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO., & ORS. ETC . versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
39.9 A MALANKARA RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO., & OR'!. ETC . II c D E F G H . ETC. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC. A?ril 28, 1972 [S. M. S!KRI, C.J., J.M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MnTER, JJ.J Kera/a Land Reforms Act 1964 as amended in 1969 and 1971- Validity oj sub-section (lA) of s. 96-Public purpose in sub-section (lA) whether can be read down as public purpose connected with agrarian Te1orm-Provisions relating to kudik1dippukars whether covered by expres- sion 'agrarian reform'-Reduction of ceiling by amending Act without payment of compensarzon at market value-Validity-Act whether discri- mittatory is not granting exemption to pepper and areca plantations and cashewnut and cocoanut gardens-Whether offends Art. 14 of Constitution of India-Validity of provisions relating to Rubber plantations-Forests, dairy farms, lands under teak and eucalyp.·us trees whether exempted under Act. The Kerala Land R<&forms Act 1 of 1964 was included in the Ninth Schedule and was protected by A't. 3l·B of the Constitut'on. The Act was amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. The amending Act was not included in the Ninth Schedule and therefore it could claim protection ""ty under Art. 3 !A. The validity of the amended Act was considered by the Kerala High Court in Narayan Nair v. State, (A.I.R. I 971 Kerala 98). The High Court, inter alia, held that the lands in question were 'estates' within the meaning of Art. 3 lA, and that the reference ih s. 96 to reservation of acquired land. for 'public purpose' must be read down to mean pubiic pu.rpose connected with agrarian reform, and so read the Act as a whole Was protected by Art. 31A though po-tioTls failed for wint of that protec1ion. After this judgment the Kerala legislature by a further amendmetrt added sub-s. (IA) to s. 96 and provided therein that "Notwithstancl:ing anything contained in sub-s. (1) the Land Board may, if it cons'dered that any land vested in the Government under sec'ion 86 and section 87 is required for any public pucpose, reserve such land for such pwpose". The prrsent petitions challenging various prov;sions of the Ac:t as amended were filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution. HELD : (i) It was for the pet;lfoneri: to establish that the lands· heh] by them and mentioned in the petitions were not 'estates' so that they could be out of the purview of the Act: It was all the more neressary for them to do so in view of the cate~oical findings of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in bara~raoh 5 and 99 of the judgment is Narayan Nair's case. In the absence of material in the petitions lo show prima fade that the lands of the petit;oners were not estates it could not be held that the pelit'oners were. not affected by the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1964 as amended in 1969. In any event, so far as the orovisions of the 1964 Act a·e concerned the same could not be challenged U"der Art. 31 hv reason of its inclu.'on in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitu- tion. [426E-FJ (iil The redu~tion of the ceilin~ Jim·t hy the Amendin~ Act of 1969 does not attract the operation of the second proviso tn Art. 31 A(l) [426- GJ The co,,itentio1 that rednctio11 in the ceili11g area fbced bv the 1 '.J64 Art had to be comoensa·ed for bv payment of market value of the difference between the ceiling ?.reas fixed by the two Acts could not be 400 SUPB.l!ME COURT REPORTS (1913} 1 S.C.R. accepted inasmuch as the "cciling Wnit applicable to him under 1111)' law for the time being in force in Art. 31 A" can refer only to the limit im• po6ed by the law which fixes it a.ildi not any ear11er Jaw which is amended and repealed. 14130] lt was open to the legislature to prescribe a ceiling for all landholders whother they are incorporated or not, and merely because the 1964 Act did not. touch these in co. porated bodies, no objection can be taken to their being brought within the fold by the Amending Act. [413H-414Bl (iii) Section 96(1A) is no donbt couched is too general and wide a lan&uage ot including public purpose wh.ch would not be those falling withtn the expression 'agrarian reform'. The fact however that the legis- lature has once again used tbe same general language in spite of t.1e interpretation gi\i:n by the High Court in Narayan Nair's case need ncit lead us to st. ike down wholly the sub-section. ln accordance with lho well recognised canon of construction adopted in a number o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.