The main legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional validity of provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, particularly S.73, S.45-A, and the Explanation to S.85(1). The court's decision highlighted the conflict between the provisions and the constitutional rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

1. hese are 43 appeals (C. As. Nos. 143, 274, 309 and 203 to 242 of 1971), 40 appeals (C. As. Nos. 203 to 242 of 1971), being by the State of Kerala and the Land Board and the remaining three by some of the writ petitioners in the High Court. Most of the. material provisions of the amended Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act. No.1 of 1964 (hereinafter called the impugned Act) were challenged in the High Court as violative of Art.14, 19, 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution. Quite a number of writ petitions, however, assailed the entire impugned Act on that score. The sole defence in sustaining the constitutional validity of the impugned Act was based on Art.31 A of the Constitution. The High Court struck down several provisions of the impugned Act. In the State appeals (C. As. Nos. 203 to 242 of 1971) the judgment of the High Court is questioned only in so far as it struck down S.73 and Explanation to S 85 (1) of the impugned Act. The judgment appealed from is reported as V. N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (1970 KLT. 659). Raman Nayar C.J., and Raghavan J., expressed their conclusions through the Chief Justice thus:

'In the result we declare the following provisions of the Act void: S.29-A. S.32 in so far as (and only in so far as) it bars a civil Court from prohibiting a person who has made an application for determination of fair rent from entering on the land to which the application relates so long as the application is pending, S.45-A, sub section (2) of S.50-A, S.73, the Explanation to sub-section (1) of S.85 and sub-section (7) of S.125. For the rest we dismiss the petitions but make it clear that this dismissal involves no pronouncement regarding provisions which we have not expressly considered. We make no order as to costs."

2. Mathew J., in separate judgment upheld the validity of S, 73 but on all other points he agreed with the majority.

3. It may at the outset be pointed out that the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act No 1 of 1964) as originally enacted was specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution (item No. 39 in that Schedule) and is therefore, immune from constitutional challenge founded on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by any provision of Part III of the Constitution, vide Art.31-B. It is only the subsequent amendment of the original Act which, having not been specified in the Ninth Schedule is open to attack as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

4. S. 73 of the impugned Act which was substituted for the old S.73 of the original Act reads: (Section omitted)

5. The majority opinion of the High Court while striking down this section, observed:

6. "Under S.73, all arrears of rent accrued due before the 1st May, 1968 and outstanding at the commencement of the amending Act are wiped off except to the extent of one year's rent in the case of a tenant possessing not more than five acres of land, of two years' rent in the case of a tenant possessing more than five acres but not more than ten acres of land, and three years' rent in the case of a tenant possessing more than ten acres. However, when the tenant is in possession of more than fifteen acres and the landlord is a small holder the tenant is liable to pay the entire arrears. This section, it seems to us, cannot get the protection of Art.31-A. Rent yet to accrue is no doubt a legal incident of the property concerned-see S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act and the right to receive rent in the future might well be regarded as a right in the estate constituted by the land. But rent in arrear only constitutes a debt, and excepting perhaps to the extent to which it is a charge on the land, is not an interest therein. (See in this connection AIR. 1952 S C. 252). The effect of S.73 is not merely to deprive the landlord of the charge conferred, on him by S.42 but to wipe off the debt itself and this debt not being an interest