Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.

Two vital provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 27 of 1979, Explanation II added to S.27 of the Parent Act and the transitory provision, S.17, are in challenge in this writ petition. Shri.T.R. Govinda Wariyar, counsel appearing for the petitioner has made his submissions on a broad canvas contending that the right to property, no longer a fundamental right, after the 44th Amendment to the Constitution is in a better and favoured position as an ordinary Constitutional right under Article 300 A and thus requiring this Court to consider the scope and content of Article 300 A and also the impact of Article 39(b)& (c) in Part IV of the Directive Principles and the effect of Article 31C of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner, Sukapuram Sabhayogam is a religious institution consisting

of the members of the Namboodiri community in Sukapuram gramam, having as its. objects, the performance of certain religious rights and ceremonies and owning several items of properties, mostly in the possession of tenants. When the Kerala Land Reforms Act came into force, the landlord's rights became vested in the Government and the petitioner was entitled only to the compensation amount, as provided under the Act. It is the petitioner's case that several tenants approached the Land Tribunals constituted under the Act for purchase of the petitioner's rights, most of the applications have been disposed of and the purchase price determined under S.72F of the Act as multiples of the contract rent has been made payable in annual instalments as provided in the Act itself. When finality has been given in almost all cases regarding the purchase price payable by the tenants, the Land Reforms Act was amended in 1979, Explanation II to S.27 was added which directed contract rent to be determined in a particular way and a transitory provision was inserted enabling the Land Board to reopen orders which became final to refix the compensation amount and to order refund of the excess amount, if any, paid to the land holders.

3. The Land Tribunals proceeded to take action under these amended provisions, reopened the orders fixing the purchase price and directed that the petitioner would be entitled only to receive smaller amount as purchase price and in consequence thereof, issued directions to refund the excess amount. There is also the threat of Revenue Recovery proceedings. The petitioner has impleaded respondents 6 to 11, his erstwhile tenants in a representative capacity also, after obtaining necessary permission front the court and after publication in the newspapers. The concerned Land Tribunals are also on the party array.

4. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2, a kanam kachit dated 5-11-1935 in respect of lands held by respondents 6 to 8. He states that the rent under the said document is 168 paras of paddy and 0.64 Ps. Out of the agreed rent, 121 paras 8 edangazhi 11/2 nazhi is deducted by way of interest on the kanam amount and also in lieu of the obligations undertaken by the tenant for the payment of the land revenue. 12 paras of paddy is again deducted to enable the tenant to perform the "Thiruvathira Uttu" on behalf of the landlord and the net michavaram is fixed only 34 paras 1 edangazhi and 21/2 nazhi of paddy. The purchase price payable in respect of this whole tenancy was fixed by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 20-2-1979 at Rs.5,935.04. When S.17 of the Amendment Act was invoked and the compensation amount was re-fixed, the compensation amount has been reduced to Rs.1,212.16 on the ground that in the light of Explanation II to S.27 of the Act, inserted by the Amendment, the contract rent should be treated as 34 paras 1 edangazhi and 21/2 nazhi of paddy. On that basis, the compensation amount was only Rs. 1212.16. The petitioner has also produced a list of the names of the tenants, the compensation originally awarded and the compensation fixed now. The following particulars in the petition do illustrate