Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L.Oza : K.N.Saikia
Munjushree Plantation Limited
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu
Case No. : 367 , 375 of 1977, 1344-45 , 1976 , 2457 of 1977
Date of Decision : 2/17/89
Advocates Appeared: Balakrishnan S. : Bhushan Shanti : Chitale Y.S. : Iyer T.S.Krishnamurthy : Jayaraman M. : John Swarup : Kapur Naina : Krishnan B.J. : Mohan K.J. : Mohan R. : Nair K.M.K. : Perumal R.A. : Ramalingam P.N. : Ramaswamy G. : Sampath A.T.M. : Sen B. : Singh S.P. : Subhashini A. : Subramanium Gopal
Madras Estates Act, 1948 - Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmarn Estates Act, 1969 - Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 and 31 - Cultivating possession of lands – Claim of compensation - It appears that in erstwhile State of Madras Estates Act, 1948 was passed but later for this area Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmarn Estates Act, 1969 was passed - This Act received assent of President but Act was to come into force on a date which was to be notified by government under S. 1(4 of Act but it appears that even before Act was brought into force constitutional validity of Act was challenged by various Janmies and plantation lessees from Janmies in Madras High court on ground that the Act violated Articles 14, 19 and 31 of Constitution of India - Madras High court upheld validity of Act by its judgment and on appeal this court by its judgment upheld validity of Act in all respects but it held that S. 3 insofar as it relates to forests area it could not be regarded as a measure pertaining to agrarian reforms and could not therefore get protection of Article 31-A of Constitution and it is only to this limited extent that Act was declared unconstitutional by this decision– Held, Learned counsel appearing for State contended that in fact this is not stage when these questions of interpretation should be raised and decided by apex court as it appears that proceedings for grant of ryotwari patta either in case of Janmies under S. 8 or in case of tenants under S. 9 have not been taken - Similarly interpretation of S. 17 also at this stage is merely academic and in none of these cases that stage has reached - It is therefore clear that as Writ Petition have raised question of constitutional validity of this Act and additional grounds have also been included in appeals as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu question of constitutional validity has to be decided - It was contended by learned counsel for State that in two decision of this court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Woman v. Union of India it has been observed that if enactment could be saved within scope of Article 31-A or 31-C then merely because it has been put in Ninth Schedule under Article 31-B challenge of constitutional validity is of no avail and on this basis it was contended that although question involved is an important question of law pertaining to interpretation of Constitution but in view of these decisions it does not involve question of interpretation of Constitution and therefore it is not necessary to make a reference to a five Judges bench as required under Article 145(3) - It could not be disputed that question which is involved is a substantial question of law with regard to interpretation of Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of Constitution of India - It is also clear that this Act so far as it pertains to forests land is concerned was declared unconstitutional and it appears that it was because of this that Act was put in Ninth Schedule by Thirty-fourth Amendment of Constitution so that it is protected by Article 31-B – Order accordingly
Judgment
G.L. OZA, J.
(1) IN these appeals questions pertaining to the effect of certain laws on the rights of landholders in different capacities in Gudalur Taluk of Nilgiris District are raised.
(2) IT appears that in the erstwhile State of Madras, Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was passed but later for this area the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmarn Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 was passed. This Act received the assent of the President on 6/12/1969 but the Act was to come into force on a date which was to be notified by the government under S. 1(4 of the Act but it appears that even before the Act was brought into force the constitutional validity of the Act was challenged by various Janmies and the plantation lessees from Janmies in the Madras High court on the ground that the Act violated Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. The Madras High court upheld the validity of the Act by its judgment dated 26/10/1970 and on appeal this court by its judgment dated 19/04/1972 upheld the validity of the Act in all respects but it held that S. 3 (vesting section) insofar as it relates to the forests area it could not be regarded as a measure pertaining to agrarian reforms and could not therefore get the protection of Article 31-A of the Constitution and it is only to this limited extent that the Act was declared unconstitutional by this decision in Balmadies Plantations Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu.
(3) A day after the aforesaid judgment of this Court i. e. on 20/04/1972 the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force by which Article 31-C was introduced in the Constitution. On 7/09/1974 the Janmarn Act of 1969 as it was, was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution by the Constitution (Thirtyfourth Amendment) Act and thereafter from 20/11/1974 by a notification under S. 1(4 the Act was brought into force.
(4) DURING the period this Act was challenged and was not brought into force, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 which had already been passed but was not applied to this area was also made applicable and in pursuance of that Act certain proceedings had started in respect of determination of ceiling of the land held by either the Janmies or the lessees. In these appeals the only question which mainly was raised was that as the Land Reforms Act was brought into force and proceedings under that Act had started this Act could not be applied to this territory and on such contention Writ Petition were filed before the High court and against the judgment of the High court these appeals are before us. But these appellants also filed Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the provisions of this Act in view of the fact that this Act was put in the Ninth Schedule after the decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The constitutional validity of this Act could be challenged on the touchstone of basic structure of the Constitution. The Act is challenged on the ground that it affects Articles 14 and 19, therefore it affects the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore could not be given effect to. By filing applications for permission to raise additional grounds similar grounds have also been raised in these appeals and it is in view of these additional grounds that now in these appeals as well as the Writ Petition the contentions advanced are that as this Act was put in the Ninth Schedule after the decision in Kesavananda Bharati case in spite of the fact that it is put in the Ninth Schedule still as it affects the basic structure of the Constitution it will be open to challenge as regards constitutional validity.
(5) LEARNED counsel contended that S. 8 deals with Janmies and S. 9 deals with tenants. In S. 8 so far as Janmies are concerned they will get ryotwari patta if they were in cultivating possession of the lands for a continuous period of three yea
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
