1. Challenge to the validity of an agrarian relations act regarding land acquisition and the definition of estate under Article 31A. (Para 1 , 2 , 29 , 30 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 388
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th December, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Purushothaman Nambudiri, Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Respondent.
Petn. No. 105 of 1961,
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. M. K. B. Namburdripat and M. R. K. Pillai, Advocates, with him), for Petitioner; Mr. M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, for India and Mr. K. K. Mathew, Advocate-General for the State of Kerala (M/s. Sardar Bahadur, George Pudissary and Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocates, with them), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, GEORGE PUDISSARY, K.K.MATHEW, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.B.NAMBURDRIPAT, M.R.Krishna Pillai, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, GEORGE PUDISSARY, K.K.MATHEW, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.B.NAMBURDRIPAT, M.R.Krishna Pillai, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD
A bill pending the assent of the Governor or President does not lapse upon the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Furthermore, the term "estate" under Article 31A(2)(a) is inclusive and encompasses local equivalents of proprietary land holdings, protecting such acquisition laws from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 196, 200, 201 - Effect of dissolution of Legislative Assembly on a Bill pending assent - A Bill pending the assent of the Governor or the President does not lapse upon the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Article 196(5) exhaustively lists Bills that lapse on dissolution, and Bills pending assent are not included therein. (Paras 13, 14, 16)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 31A(2)(a) - Definition of "estate" - The expression "estate" is inclusive and its meaning is determined by the existing law relating to land tenures in the local area or its local equivalent. It is not strictly limited to landlord-tenures of the zamindari character. (Paras 21, 22, 24)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 31A - Protection of laws providing for acquisition of estates - If the properties in question constitute an "estate" under Article 31A(2)(a), the law providing for their acquisition is immune from challenge on the ground that it is inconsistent with or abridges rights conferred by Articles 14, 19, and 31. (Paras 18, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of an agrarian relations act and a notification implementing it. The petitioner owned lands classified under specific local tenures. A preliminary objection was raised regarding whether the bill lapsed when the Assembly was dissolved before receiving presidential assent. Further, the respondent contended the act was protected under Article 31A as the lands were "estates".
Findings of Court:
The Court found that a bill pending assent does not lapse upon dissolution of the Assembly. It further held that the lands held by the petitioner, including those under specific local tenures and those involving certain hereditary rights, constitute an "estate" within the meaning of Article 31A(2)(a).
Issues: (1) Whether a bill pending the assent of the President lapses upon the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. (2) Whether the properties owned by the petitioner constitute an "estate" under Article 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Article 196(5) is exhaustive regarding bills that lapse on dissolution; since bills pending assent are not mentioned, they survive. Regarding "estate", the court held that the term should be construed broadly based on local equivalents and existing land tenure laws, and specifically, certain local proprietary rights and hereditary rights fall within this definition.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a bill pending Presidential assent lapses upon dissolution of the Assembly and whether specific land tenures constitute an estate under Article 31A. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 14 , 17 , 20 )
3. Analysis of Article 196 regarding bill lapse and interpretation of estate based on local equivalents and the Fourth Amendment to Article 31A. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 )
4. Bills pending assent of the Governor or President do not lapse on dissolution of the Assembly; land satisfying local equivalent tests constitutes an estate under Article 31A. (Para 13 , 16 , 24 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 64 , 68 )
6. Does a bill pending the assent of the Governor or President lapse upon the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly?
No. Article 196(5) exhaustively lists bills that lapse on dissolution, and bills pending assent are not included. The scheme of Articles 200 and 201 further supports that such bills remain alive. (Para 13 , 16 , 38 )
7. Can a successor Legislative Assembly reconsider a bill remitted by the President if the original Assembly was dissolved?
Yes. Reconsideration does not require the identity of the original House; a successor House can reconsider the bill and, if passed, it is presented for assent. (Para 17 , 40 , 41 )
8. How is the term estate interpreted under Article 31A(2)(a) when local law does not explicitly define it?
It is determined by identifying a local equivalent. The basic concept is that the holder is a proprietor of the soil in a direct relationship with the State, paying land revenue. (Para 21 , 24 , 57 )
9. Do Janmam rights in Kerala constitute an estate under Article 31A?
Yes. The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, specifically added Janmam rights in the States of Madras and Kerala to the definition of estate under Article 31A(2)(a). (Para 18 , 35 , 64 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : (For himself and Sarkar, Wanchoo and Das Gupta JJ.) This petition has been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and it seeks to challenge the validity of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, l960 (Act 4 of 1961) (hereafter called the Act). The petitioner owns about 1,250 acres of land in the Kerala State. These lands were originally situated within the erstwhile State of Cochin which now forms part of the Kerala State. Out of the lands owned by the petitioner nearly 900 acres are classified in the land records maintained by the State as Pandaravaka holdings while the remaining lands are classified his Puravaka holdings. By his petition the petitioner claims a declaration that the Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional and prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent, the State of Kerala, restraining it from implementing the provisions of the Act. It appears that a notification has been issued by the respondent on February 15, 1961 directing the implementation of Ss. 1 to 40, 57, 58, 60, 74 to 79 as well as Ss. 31 to 95 of the Act from the date of the notification. The petitioner contends that the notification issued under the Act is also ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal and as such he wants an appropriate writ or order to be issued quashing the said notification. That in brief is the nature of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.
2. The Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill which has ultimately become the Act was published in the Government Gazette of Kerala on December 18, 1957 and was introduced in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on December 21, 1957 by the Communist Government which was then in power. The bill was discussed in the Assembly and was ultimately passed by it on June 10, 1959. It was then reserved by the Governor of the state for the assent of the President under Art. 200 of the Constitution, Meanwhile, on July 31, 1959 the President issued a proclamation under Art. 356 and the Assembly was dissolved. In February1960 mid-term general elections took place in Kerala and as a result a coalition Government came into power. On July 27, 1960 the President for whose assent the bill was pending sent it back with his message requesting the Legislative Assembly to reconsider the bill in the light of the specific amendments suggested by him. On August 2, 1960 the Governor returned the bill remitted by the President with his message and the amendments suggested by him to the new Assembly for consideration. On September 26, 1960 the amendments suggested by the President were taken up for consideration by the Assembly and ultimately on October 15, 1960 the bill as amended in the light of the President s recommendations was passed by the Assembly. It then received the assent of the President on January 21, 1961, and after it thus became law the impugned notification was issued by the respondent on February 15,1961. On March 9, 1961 the present writ petition was filed.
3. Broadly stated three points fall to be considered in this petition. The petitioner challenges the validity of the Act on the preliminary ground that the bill which was pending before the President for his assent at the time when the Legislative Assembly was dissolved lapsed in consequence of the said dissolution and so it was not competent to the President to give his assent to a lapsed bill with the result that the said assent and all proceedings taken subsequent to it are constitutionally invalid. If this preliminary point is upheld no further question would arise and the petition will have to be allowed on that ground alone. If, however, this preliminary challenge to the validity of the bill does not succeed the respondent raises its preliminary objection that the Act is protected under Art. 31 A (1) (a) and as such its validity cannot be challenged on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away, or abridges, any of the rights conferred by Arts. 14, 19 and 31.
