ZAMINDAR OF ETTAYAPURAM versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 05-02-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

< 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ZAMINDAR OF ETTAYAPURAM 
11. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS. 
(and connected appeals) 
• 
rMEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN c. J., MuKHERJEA, 
761 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 
(Act 
XXV/ 
of 
1948)-Volidity thereof-Article 31(~ of the 
Constitution. 
1~he !v1adras 
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 
Acl, (Act XXVI of 1948) was passed by the Provincial Legislature 
of Madras functioning under the Government of 
India 
Act, 1935 
and it received 
the 
assent 
of the Governor-General 
of India On 
the 2nd of April, 1949. 
After the advent of the Constitution. the 
ACt was reserved for the certification of the President and it \Vas. 
certified on the 12th of April, 1950 : 
Held, that 
in view 
of the 
provisions 
of art. 31(6) of the 
Constitution the validity of the Act could not be challenged on the 
ground that 
it 
contravened the 
provisions 
of s. 299(2) 
of the 
Govcrnn1ent of India Act, 1935 . 
. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India ([1952] S.C.R. 
89), The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singlr 
((1952] S.C.K. 889) and Narayan Deo v. The State of Oriua ([1954J 
S.C.R. I) referred to. 
· 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
CIVIL 
APPEALS 
Nos. 170 to 176 and 178 to 183 of 1953. 
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated the 
22nd August, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras in Civil Miscellaneous 
Petitions Nos. 13386,. 
13388, 13390, 7812, 12003, 13188, 13262, 7822, 13123, 
13347, 13341, 12997, 12494 of 1950 and Order dated 
8th September, 1952, in C. M. P. No. 13936 of 1950. 
' K. S . . Krishnaswamy Iyengar (K. S. Champakesa 
Iyengar, with him) for the appellants. 
. - ' V. K. T. 
Chari, 
Advocate-General 
of 
Madras 
(R. Ganapathy Iyer and V. V. Raghavan, with him) for 
the respondent (State of Madras) in Civil Appeals Nos. 
170 to 176 and 178 to 181. 
. M. Seshachalapathi for 
the respondent 
(State of 
Andhra) in Civil Appeals Nos. 182 and 183. 
1954. February 5. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by MuKHERJEA J. 
12-95 s. c. r./59 
I95t 
. Fe.biuary, 5· 
1954 
Zamindatof 
Etrayapuram 
v. 
TM Slate of 
Madras. 
Mukhetjea J. 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
MuKHERJEA J.-These consolidated appeals, num-
bering foufteen in all, are directed against a common 
judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High 
Court dated the 23rd of August, 1952, by which the 
learned Judges dismissed the petitions of the different 
appellants made under article 226 of the Constitution. 
The appellants are 
landholders of 
Madras, holding 
zamindaries within that State, and in their applications 
under 
~rticle 226 of the Constitution they prayed for 
writs in the nature of mandamus, directing the State 
of Madras to forbear from notifying and taking over 
possession 
of the estates held by them and also to 
cancel the notifications 
already issued, in exercise of 
its powers under the Madras Estates (Abolition and 
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Act XXVI of 1948). 
This Act, the constitutional validity of which has been 
assailed by the appellants, was passed by the Provin-
cial Legislature of Madras functioning under the Gov-
ernment of India Act, 1935, and it received the assent 
<if the Governor-General of India on the 2nd of April, 
1949. The avowed object of the Act is to abolish the 
·zamindary system by repealing the Madras Permanent 
-Settlement Regulation of 1802, to acquire the rights 
of landholders in the permanently settled and other 
-estates and to introduce the R yotwari system in all 
such estates. 
After the advent of the Constitution, 
the Act was reserved for certification of the President 
and it was certified on the 12th of April, 1950. In the 
petitions presented by the appellants, a large number 
·of grounds were put forward by way of attacking the 
validity of the legislation which was characterised as 
·confiscatory in its character and subversive of 
the 
fundamental 
right of property, which the petition-
ers had in the zamindaries held by them under the 
Permanent 
Settlement 
Regulation. 
Pending 
the 
.disposal 
of 
thes~ petitions, 
the Constitution 
(First 
Amendment) Act of 1951 was passed on 1st of June, 
1951, and this amendment introduced two new articles 
namely, article 
31-A 
and 31-B 
in the 
Constitution, 
:appartently with a view to protect the various 
laws 
-enacted for acquisition of estates from being challenged 
under 
the 
relevant 

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