WAMAN RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 25 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

W AMAN RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
May 9, 1980/November 13, 1980 
1 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA JyER, 
V. D. TULZAPURK,AR AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961 as 
aniended by Amendtnent Acts 21 of 1975, 47 of 1975 and 2 of 1976-Whether 
violates Articles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution-Right to challenge, if a consti­
tutional provision wliich deprives any person/ citizen of the benefit and protec­
aon of Article.J 14, 19 and 31 is invalid, any law on the ground it is inconsis­
tent with or :that it takes away or abridges the right conferred by Part Ill of 
the Constitution-Constitution of India, Article 13(2), scope of-Constitution­
ali;y of .Articles 31A, 31B and the unamended Article 31C of the Constitut.fon­
Doctrine ci stare decisis, applicability to Articles 3 lA & 31 B-l-Iouse of the 
People (Extensioll of Duration) Act (30 of 1976) section 2 and House of the 
People (Exti'nsion of Duration) Act (Act 109 of 1976) section 2-Proclaniation 
of Emergency dated Decen1ber 3, 1971 and June 25, 1975, Constitution (Fortie1h 
Amendment) Act, 1976-Validity of. 
A ceiling on agriculturaJ holdings v.•as imposed in 
Maharashtra 
by 
the 
ùlaharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 27 of 1961, which 
W<l:l brought into operation on January 26, 1962. 
The ceiling fixed by the 
Act (Principal Act) 
was lov»ered and certain other amendments ¥.'ere made 
to tlrnt Act by Acts 27 of 1975, 47 of 1975 and 2 of 1976. 
The validity of 
1hcse Acts was challenged in the Bombay High Court. 
The Division Bench 
at Nagpur repelled that challenge by its judgment dated August 13, 1976 in 
Vd!ialrao Udhaorao Uttarwar v. Slate of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 Bombay 99. 
TI1e appeals filed against the said decision 
were dismissed by the 
Supreme 
Court 
by 
its 
judgment 
in 
Dattanaya 
GO\'ind 
Mahajan 
v. 
Stale 
of 
Maharashtra, [19771 2 SCR 790. 
The only point urged in these appeals \\1as 
that the Jlrincipal Act, as amended, was void .. being violative of the second pro­
viso to Article 3lA(1), tn so far as it created an artificial "family unit" and 
fixed the unit on the agricultural holdings on such family units. 
The argu­
n1ent that the violation of the particular proviso deprived the impugned laws 
of the protection conferred. by Article 3 lA \vas rejected by the Cotut on the 
view 1bat even if the impugned provisions were violative of the second proviso 
they y-;·ould receive the protection of Article 31B by reason of the inclusion of 
the Principal Act and the amending Acts in the Ninth Schedule. 
The Court 
con£idered whether, in fact, the provisions of the impugned Acts Vi'ere violative 
of the second proviso and held that it was entirely for the Legislature to decide 
what policy to adopt for the purpose of restructuring the agrarian system and 
the Court could not assume the role of an economic adviser for pronouncing 
upon the wisdom of such policy. 
The second proviso to Article 31A(l} was 
therefore held not to have been contravened. 
'fhe judgment of this Court in these appeals \Vas delivered on January 27, 
1977 while the proclamation of emergency was in operation. 
On the revoca­
ticn of that proclamation, petitions were 
filed in this 
Court by the appellants 
A 
B 
.. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
praying for the review of the judgment in Dattaraya 
Govind 
Mahajan on 
rhe ground that .several contentions, which were otherwise open to them for 
assailing the constitutional validity of the impugned Acts, could not be made 
by reason of the emergency and that they should be permitted to make those 
contentions since the emergency was lifted. 
Fresh Writ Petitions were also 
filed in this Court in \Vhich those contentions were put forward. 
The Court 
acceded to the request for the review and hence the peititions. 
B 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD 
: 
(Majority view) 
Per Chandrachud, C.J. (On his O\Vll 
behalf and on 
behalf of Krishna Iyer, 
Tulzapurkar and Sen, JJ.) 
C 
A. (I) The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 which introduced 
D 
Article 31A into the Constitution with 
retrospective 
effect 
and sec. 3 
of the 
Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 \vhich substituted a new clause 
(lJ, sub·clauses (a) to (e) for the original clause (1) with retrospective effect, 
do not damage any of the basic or essential features of the Constitution or 
its bas

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