Article 31 (2A) of the Constitution, introduced by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, is retrospective in its operation and can be applied to validate a law that deprives a person of their property without compensation, provided that the law does not provide for the transfer of ownership or right to possession of the property to the State or a corporation owned or controlled by the State.

Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE - SECTION 214 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - PROPERTY RIGHTS - COMPENSATION - ARTICLE 31 - ARTICLE 31A - ARTICLE 19 (1) (F) - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 31 (2A).
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, representing the Berar Provincial Patels and Patwaris Association and individual patels and patwaris, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, which repealed the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, and extinguished their hereditary rights without compensation. The petitioners argued that their rights constituted "property" under Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 of the Constitution, and that Section 214 violated their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the rights held by the petitioners under the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law constituted "property" within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 of the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that the mere office of a patwari or patel was not property, as the rights attached to each office included valuable monetary rights in the form of emoluments and rights to concessional lands.
Issues: 1. Whether the rights held by the petitioners under the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law constituted "property" within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, violated the petitioners' fundamental rights by depriving them of their property without compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "property" in Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 of the Constitution broadly, holding that it extends to well-recognized types of interests that have the characteristics of proprietary rights. 2. The court found that the rights held by the petitioners, including the right to emoluments and concessional lands, constituted "property" within the meaning of the Constitution. 3. The court held that Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, violated the petitioners' fundamental rights by depriving them of their property without compensation, as it did not fall within any of the exceptions provided in Article 31. 4. However, the court upheld the validity of Section 214 by applying Article 31 (2A), which was introduced by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. The court held that Article 31 (2A) was retrospective in its operation and deemed the law not to provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, even though it deprived the petitioners of their property without compensation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, by applying Article 31 (2A) of the Constitution.

Judgment -

S.P. Kotwal, JJ.

1. This petition raises important questions as to the applicability and scope of Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (Act II of 1955), and as to its constitutional validity.

2. The facts upon which the petition is based are simple. The first petitioner is an association known as the Berar Provincial Patels and Patwaris Association, of which the petitioner Nagorao son of Haribhau Gaopande is the authorised representative. Nagorao also was at the material time the malik watan-dar patwari of several villages in Akola Taluq and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were the malik watan-dar patels of several villages in Akola faluq, district Akola and in Malkapur taluq of Buldhana district respectively. The petitioners were appointed to their respective offices under the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900. To the provisions of this law and the circumstances in which it came to be passed we shall presently advert.

3. After the abolition of malguzaris and other proprietary rights in Madhya Pradesh by thy Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 (Act I of 1951), the law governing land tenures and the rights and liabilities of holders of land from the State Govt. had to be radically revised, and so the new Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, came to be passed. It received the assent of the President on 5-2-1955 and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extra-ordinary on 12-2-1955. By Section 1 of the Code it was to come into force "in the whole of Madhya Pradesh from such date as the State Government may by notification appoint", except Section 242, with which we are not here concerned. The notification of Government brought the Act into force from 1-10-1955.

4. Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code runs as follows:

"214. (I) At the end of one year from the date appointed for the corning into force of this Code or on any earlier date which the State Government may, by notification, specify, the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, shall stand repealed and any right or claim to continue or to be appointed as a patel or patwari under the said law shall stand extinguished.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sections 205 and 212, the powers, terms and conditions of service of patels and palwaris in Berar shall be governed by the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, until it is repealed under Sub-section (1)".

It will be noticed that the Section repeals the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, from the end of one year from the date appointed for the coming into force of the Code, and therefore that law stood repealed on 2-10-1956.

5. It was the petitioners case that the then State of Madhya Pradesh acting under Section 214, issued a notification on 25-6-56, declaring that as from 1-10-56 the watandari rights of the petitioners would be at an end and ordering that new patels shall be appointed by the Deputy Commissioners under Section 205 of the Code to the vacant posts. Government also purported to issue new rules governing such appointments.

6. The petitioners alleged that their rights as watandar patels and patwaris were hereditary rights and amounted to "property" within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, and that since Section 214 of the Land Revenue Code purported to abolish those rights without payment of any compensation, Section 214 (1) was ultra vires, void and of no effect as it was in conflict with the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 31 (1) and Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

7. The original petition, it has to be noted, was filed on 20-8-56, that is to say, before Section 214 actually came into force on 2-10-56. The peti-tioners had applied for stay of the implementation of Governments resolution of 25-6-1956, referred to above, but stay was refused by this Court. In the meanwhile, pending the petition Section 214 came into force on 2-10-1956 and the State Government made appointments of new patels in ter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis