Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY. C.J.I., D.G. PALEKAR, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
State of Kerala and another, Appellants
Versus
The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. etc., Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 151, 152. 153 176 to 182. 186 to l89 and 198 of l971 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1398, 1416 and 1417 of 1972, D/- 18-9-1973.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1398, 1416 and 1417 of l972:
Writ Petns. Nos. 151, 152, 153, 176 to 182, 186 to 189 and 198 of 1971:
M/s. Amalgamated Malabar Estate (P) Ltd. etc., Petitioners
Versu
State of Kerala and another. Respondents.
Kerala Private Forests Act 26, 1971 - Section 10, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 , 17 and 18 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) (g), 31, 32, 31A , 31A (1), (2) (a) (i), 38 and 39 - Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 - Kerala Private Forests Act. 1971 - Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1955 - Forest Lands - Declared Act as Unconstitutional and Void - Whether Act is protected by Article 31A (1) of Constitution - Whether reserve or private, have been applied for generations for settlement of agriculturists - Whether such settlements were authorised or unauthorized - Whether they can be regarded as estate within contemplation of Article 31A (2) of Constitution - Whether Act is constitutional in sense that it is protected by Section 31A (l) - Whether wings of Art. 31A are wide enough and provisions of Forest Act fair enough for Court to grant constitutional shelter - Whether a Particular programme of agrarian reform is good or bad from point of view of needs of community - Whether it is in fact a scheme of agrarian reform, and if it is, prudence or folly thereof falls outside orbit of judicial review - Whether impugned enactment outlines a blue-print for agrarian reform Court - Whether a statute is constitutional or not is thus always a question of power – Held, Forest Act is calculated to bring benefit to landless labourers, tribals and other proletarian groups in over-populated State of Kerala - Fear that executive will dawdle and delay unreasonably or act obliquely to defeat agrarian welfare content of measure may gain credibility when scheme is not legislatively time-bound - contention that Article 31A does not protect a legislation where no compensation whatsoever has been provided when taking estate - Court, however, did not decide question - Court, on our part, do not think there is any merit in it - Once Court find legislative area is barricaded by Art. 31A, it cannot be breached by Arts. 14, 19 and 31 and judicial break-in is constitutionally interdicted - But, at same time, Court must hasten to point out that Art. 31A is no charter of legislative freedom to refuse compensation altogether in every case - Court may not strike down a statute for non-payment of compensation but legislature is expected, except in exceptional sociohistorical setting, to provide just payment for deprived persons - To exclude judicial review is not to black out beneficent provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 31 - May be present legislation dealing with extensive antiquated Janman rights relates to exceptional category - All that Court can say is that this is an area where not court but elector is proper corrective instrument - Appeals allowed.
Judgment
PALEKAR. J.:- (For himself and on behalf of A. N. Ray, C. J. and Y. V. Chandrachud, J.). All the above cases involve a challenge to The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the Act as a whole was violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) (g) and 31 of the Constitution.
2. The lands involved are private forest lands situated in the former Malabar District which, after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, stood transferred from the old State of Madras to the new State of Kerala. As a result of the Act referred to above these forest lands vest in the State, allegedly, as a measure of agrarian reform.
3. The Writ Petitions are filed in this court under Article 32 of the Constitution by several owners and/or lessees of large tracts of forest lands. The Civil Appeals are filed by the State of Kerala from the judgment and order of a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court (Reported in AIR 1973 Kerala 36) in petitions filed in that court challenging the Act. The High Court held that the provisions of the Act are not protected by Article 31A of the Constitution and accordingly declared the Act as unconstitutional and void Thus in all the proceedings now before us which were argued together, the question involved is the validity of the Act. That will depend entirely on the question whether the Act is protected by Article 31A (1) of the Constitution.
4. The conclusion of the High Court was expressed in the following words:
"Having regard to our conclusions that forest lands in the State of Kerala cannot generally be regarded as agricultural lands and, therefore, cannot be the subject of agrarian reform and that the scheme of agrarian reform envisaged by the impugned Act is not real or genuine but only illusory, we are of the opinion that the provisions of the Act are not protected by Article 31A of the Constitution. We therefore declare the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 26 of 1971 unconstitutional and void." It is contended on behalf of the State of Kerala that in order to get the protection of Article 31A (1) (a) of the Constitution the law must fulfil two conditions - (1) that it must relate to an estate as defined in Article 31A (2) (a) and (2) that the law must be one of agrarian reform. What is included in the expression "estate" is specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (2) of Article 3lA and, since the sub-clauses are disjunctive, it will be enough for the State to show that the law relates to land covered by an "estate" falling in at least one of the sub-clauses. It was submitted that the private forests in Malabar are held in janmam right and hence they are an estate within the meaning of sub-clause (i). If the State further shows, he contended, that the law envisages a measure of agrarian reform it was not necessary for the State to establish additionally that forest lands are similar to lands described in sub-clause (iii), that is to say, lands held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. In short, in the submission on behalf of the State, the forest lands with which we are concerned are an estate within the meaning of Article 31A (2) (a) (i) of the Constitution and since Section 10 of the impugned Act, inter alia embodies a scheme of agrarian reform, the Act is valid.
5. This will be the proper place to refer to the provisions of the Act. The Act is described as one to provide for the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. The preamble is as follows:
"WHEREAS the private forests in the State of Kerala are agricultural lands;
AND WHEREAS Government consider that such agricultural lands should be so utilised as to increase the agricultural production in the State and to promote the welfare of the agricultural population in the State;
AND WHEREAS Government also consider tha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
