Non-compliance with Article 31(3) of the Constitution, which requires reservation of bills dealing with acquisition or requisition of property for the President's consideration and assent, renders the entire Act inoperative, not just the provisions related to acquisition or requisition of property.

( 1 ) THE main controversy in these petitions centres round the question whether the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (XXI o 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was enacted after the inauguration of the Constitution, is inoperative for the reason that it was not reserved for the consideration of the President as required by Article 31 (3) of the Constitution but the assent of H. E. H. the Nizam of erstwhile Hyderabad State was obtained.

( 2 ) THIS Act was passed for the purpose of regulating the relations between the landlords and tenants of agricultural lands and imposing restrictions on alienations of such lands, to assume management of lands which are left uncultivated by the landlords For distribution of the surplus lands amongst the needy persons and to provide for registration of co-operative farms. The objects of the statute are contained in the preamble to it and they are in these words :". . . . . . . . . . . . . AND whereas it is also expedient to enable land-holders to prevent the excessive sub-division of agricultural holdings, to empower Government to assume in certain circumstances the management of agricultural lands, to provide for the registration of Co-operative Farms and to make further provision for matters incidental to the aforesaid purposes ;xxxx".

( 3 ) THUS, the preamble reflects the legislative policy of the Government in regard to land reforms. This statute had not obtained the assent of the President. It underwent several amendments some of which also were not assented to by the President. The third Amendment which introduced Section 38-E and which also re-enacted the whole of Section 38, was reserved for the consideration of the President. Section 38-E has delegated the power to State Government to select as area for the purpose of transferring Ownership of lands to protected tenants.

( 4 ) PURSUANT to the power conferred by Section 38-E a notification was issued by the Government on 26-7-1955 choosing the Khamman District for the operation of Section 38-E of the Act. Subsequently, a Tribunal was constituted to enquire into the matters contemplated by the section and, ultimately, the Tribunal declared the respondents in the several revisions as owners of lands.

( 5 ) THE appeals carried by the aggrieved landlords were disallowed by the District Collector.

( 6 ) IT is the orders of the Collector confirming those of the Tribunal that form the subject matter of the several revision petitions. It may be mentioned here that the relief asked for in W. P. No. 517 of 1959 is to quash the proceedings initiated by the Collector, Khammam under Section 38-E of the Act.

( 7 ) LN support of the revision petitions and the Writ Petition, the contention pressed upon us by Sri Ekbote, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that this Act is ineffective in that it was not passed in the manner indicated by Article 31 (3) of the Constitution. It is only when the President declares his assent to the bill that it would become an Act under Article 31 (3) and since that pre-requisite is absent in this case, there is no valid law that could be enforced, continues the learned counsel.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the attitude adopted by the Government is that the non-compliance with the provisions of Article 31 (3) would not lead to the whole Act being rendered ineffectual but only such provisions as hour on the acquisition or requisition of the property of persons affected by this Act that would be ineffective.

( 9 ) THE main question, therefore, that falls for decision is as to the effect of the failure to observe the requirements of Article 31 (3 ). At the outset, it must be mentioned that it is not disputed that the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act which deal with the management or acquisition of uncultivated, improperly cultivated or surplus lands beginning with Section 51, bring the Act within the range of Article 31 because that chapter makes a provision both for acquisition