NARAYANIBAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 29-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

172 
NARAYANIBAI 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
October 29, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, K. S. HEGDE 
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act (i1 of 
1961)-Act included in Ninth Schedule to 
Constitution by the Seven-
teenth Amendment-Action taken under Act after the date of judgment 
in Golaknath:s case-If vq./idity of action can be questioned. 
The petitioner was called upon to show cause why land held by her in 
excess of the ceiling area shall not be deemed surplus land and shall not 
vest in the State under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on 
Holdings) Act, 1961. The petitioner thereupon challenged the validity of 
the Act on the ground that it violated the fundamental rig!lts under Arts. 
14, 19(1) (f) and 31 df the Constitution. It was contended that though 
A 
B 
c 
the Act was, by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, in-
corporated in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution and p·rotected from . D 
challenge by Art. 3 !B, action sought to be taken in pursuance of such an 
Act infringing the fundamental rights was :iable to be declared void, if 
that action was taken subsequent to February 27, 1967, the date on which 
judgment of this Court in Go/aknath's case, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762 was 
.delivered. 
HELD : The petition must fail. 
(I) In Golaknath's case five of the Judges upheld the Seventeenth 
Amendment· on the basis of the 'doctrine of prospective overruling : five 
relied upon the power of Parliament to exclude, from the pale of challenge, 
the Acts and Regulations in the J-linth Schedule, and one Judge was of the 
view that the Acts impugned in that case were protected by Arts. 31 (I), 
(2) (2A) and 31A(l). J'hercfore, the majority of ten Judgesof the Court 
expressly held that by virtue of Art. 3 !B the Acts incorporate<! in 
the 
Ninth Schedule were not exposed to challenge on the ground that they in-
fringed the fundamental rights. [175 D-E, G-H] 
(2) Those judges who relied upon the 'doctrine of prospective of over-
ruling', did not accept the doctrine in all its implications as understood by· 
the U.S. Courts: 
They merely denied to Parliament power, after Febru-
ary 27, 1967, to amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge 
any of the fundamental rights of the people, but amendments made prior 
to that 
date and action taken pursuant to the amendme'nts, both before 
and after that date were not to be deemed 
invalid 
on the ground that 
fundamental rights v.·ere infrir..ged. [176 C-E] 
( 3) This Court had upheld the validity of the Act as .amended 
by 
Act 13 of 1962, in State 'of Maharashtra v. 
Madhavrao Damodar Pati/-
chand, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 712. [176 F-G] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 256 of 1968. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indra for enforce-
ment of the fundamental rights. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
NARAYANIBAI V, MAHARASHTRA (Shah, J,) 
173 
M. C. Setalvad, S. L, Khanna and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the 
petitioner, 
B. Sen, M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. 
K. Jayaram, for the intervener. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J.-Narayanibai is the holder of 142 acres and 8 
gunthas of "dry crop" land in village Teosa, District Amravati 
in the State of Maharashtra. 
By notice dated March 12, 1968, 
under s. 17 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling 
on Holdings) Act 27 of 1961, the Sub-Divisional Officer, 
Chanduri, called upon Narayanibai to show cause why land held 
by her in excess of the "ceiling area" shall not be deemed surplus 
land and shall not vest in the State. Narayanibai filed a petition 
in this Court claiming a declaration that Maharashtra Act 27 
of 1961 is ultra vires the State Legislature in that it violated the 
fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) & (g) 
and 31 in Part III of the Constitution, and for an order restrain· 
ing the State of Maharashtra and the Sub-Divisional Officer, 
Chanduri, from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in 
question or any part thereof. 
Maharashtra Act 27 of 1961 is by the Constitution (Seven-
teenth Amendment) Act, 1964, incorporated m the Ninth Sche-
dule to the Constitution. Article 3 IB of the Constitution enacts 
that the Acts and Regulations in the Ninth Schedule and the 
provisions thereof shall not be deemed to be void or ever to have 
become void on the ground that the Act, Regulation or any pro-
vision thereof is inconsistent wi

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