The Act, including the amended provisions, was protected by Article 31-A of the Constitution, and the petitioner's contentions based on Articles 14, 19, and 31 failed.

BHASKAR KRISHNAJI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of certain agricultural lands situate in Indi Taluk, Bijapur District, which was formerly part of the State of Bombay before the re-organisation of States. In the area in which the lands in question are situate, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was in force. Under the said Act a ceiling had been imposed on the extent of agricultural lands which a land-holder can possess at 48 acres. But the said provision had however not been brought into operation. After the re-organisation of States, the Legislature of the State of Karnataka passed karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Act 10 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It was brought into force on 2-40-1965. The Act was amended by Karnataka Act 14 of 1965. The provisions of the Act as amended by Act 14 of 1965 were questioned before the Supreme Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 202 and 205 of 1966. Those two petitions were heard along with another writ petition presented by Golaknath and others--Writ Petition No. 193 of 1966. All the petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court by a common judgment in I. C. Golak Nath v. State of punjab, AIR1967 SC 1643 , 1967 (0 ) BLJR818 , [1967 ]2 SCR762. It was contended before the Supreme Court in the two cases referred to above that many of the sections of the Act providing for imposing a ceiling on the extent of agricultural holding a person can possess; conferment of title on the tenants in respect of certain lands which were non-resumable under the Act as it stood then; and payment of compensation in respect of the lands over which the owners would lose their title by virtue of the operation of the Act, were unconstitutional on the ground that they were violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the constitution. On behalf of the State Government it was contended that the Act could not be attacked on the basis that any of its provisions was violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 because the Act had been included in the Ninth Schedule by virtue of the Seventeenth Amendment of the constitution, and, therefore, it had the protection of Article 31-B which precluded any attack based on Part III of the Constitution against any Act included in the Ninth Schedule. It was also urged that the Act was also protected by Article 31-A of the Constitution because it had been enacted by the Legislature for the purpose of bringing about agrarian reform in the State and hence was fully protected by Article 31-A which again precluded any attack against any of its provisions on the ground that they were violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31. Subba Rao, C. J. who pronounced the leading judgment upheld the Act on the ground that it had been included in the Ninth Schedule and hence was protected by Article 31-B of the Constitution. Hidayatullah, J. who wrote a separate Judgment observed that the provisions of the Act as amended by Act 14 of 1966 were valid under the Constitution because they were protected by Article 31-A of the constitution. Dealing with the provisions of the Act, Hidayatullah, J. was of the opinion that the act came within the scope of Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for, the acquisition by the state of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, should be deemed to be void on the ground that it was inconsistent with or took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31. After the above decision of the Supreme Court was rendered, the Act was amended by the Karnataka Legislature by Act 1 of 1974 by which many of the provisions of the Act were amended. Act 1 of 1974 came into force on March 1, 1974, on which date it was published in Karnataka Gazette.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the course of the writ petition that the petitioner had instituted certain proceedings against some of his tenants,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document