SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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.



















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top