( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act 1 of 1974) by which the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Karnataka act 10 of 1962), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', stood substantially amended and the provisions of S. 4 of the Karnataka Tenants (Relief in payment off Arrears of Rent) Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act 2 of 1973 ).

( 2 ) IN Bhaskar Krishnaji v. State of Karnataka, AIR. 1975 Kar. 55= (1974) 2 Karlj. 509. it has been held that the Kar Act 1 of 1974 is protected by Art. 31a of the Constn having regard to the object of the Act and that therefore the provisons of the said Act cannot be questioned on the ground that they are inconsistent with Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) IN Khatija Bi v. State of Karnataka, (1975) 2 Karlj. 157. the validity of Ss. 48 and 48a of the Act as amended by Kar Act 1 of 1974 has been upheld rejecting the contention that by enacting the said provisions the State Legislature had altered the basic features of the Constitution.

( 4 ) IN view of the above two decisions, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to question the validity of the provisions of Kar Act 1/74. It was, however, argued by Sri T. Venkanna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, relying upon the observations of the Supreme court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR. 1952 SC. 252. that it was not open to the State Legislature tc make a law which would entitle the State govt to recover arrears of rent in respect of lands which vest in the State govt under S. 44 (l) of the Act for the period prior to the date on which the lands would vest in the State Govet without providing for payment of compensation. it was argued that S. 44 (2) (b) of the Act which had the effect of depriving the owners of the lands such arrears of rent was not protected by Art. 31a or by any other provision of the Ccnstn. S. 44 (2) (b) of the Act reads as follows :" 44. (1) * * * (2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in farce, with effect on and from the dale of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely : (a) * * * (b) all rents and all other amounts in respect of such lands which become due on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State govt and not to the land-owner, landlord or any other person and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid. "

( 5 ) IT is not correct to say that the State Govt had acquired the right to recover the arrears of rent due for the period prior to the date of vesting of the lands under the above provision of law. What S. 44 (2) (b) means is that all the rents and all ether amounts, in respect of lands which would vest in the State Govt, due for the period subsequent to the date of vesting alone would be payable to the State Govt and not rents in respect of any earlier period even though they may have been payable after 1-3-1974. It becomes therefore clear that Cl (b) of Sec. 44 (2) does not entitle the State Govt to recover rents in respect of any period prior to the date of vesting under s. 44 (1) of the Act. The decision in State of Bihar v. Kameshwnr Singh (3) is therefore inapplicable to the present case.

( 6 ) BY Sec. 4 of the Karnataka Tenants (Relief in Payment of Arrears of rent) Act, 1972, the Court has been conferred with the jurisdiction to allow payment of decrees passed in respect of the arrears of rents to be paid in instalments in accordance with the provisions contained therein. The above section has been enacted by the State Legislature notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the contrary. The code of Civil Procedure is a s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document