1987 (4) TMI 484 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Vires of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act I of 1974.
2. Constitution of a Tribunal with unspecified qualifications.
3. Exclusion of legal practitioners from appearing before the Tribunals.

Summary:

1. Vires of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as Amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act I of 1974:
The principal submission was that the 1974 amendment, which took away the right of a landlord to resume possession of the tenanted land where he bona fide required the land for personal cultivation and had no other principal source of income for his own maintenance, was ultra vires, notwithstanding its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, as it offended the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that the amendment was a law aimed at agrarian reform, securing the Directive Principles contained in Arts. 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The court found no provision of the Amending Act that offends the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. Constitution of a Tribunal with Unspecified Qualifications:
The argument was that the constitution of a Tribunal consisting of persons with unspecified qualifications in place of a court was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. The court acknowledged the criticisms of the functioning of such Tribunals but held that the mal-functioning of some Tribunals could not vitiate the provision relating to the constitution of the Tribunal and the entrustment of the decision of certain issues to the Tribunal. The court noted that Land Tribunals have functioned well in other states and that the Karnataka Legislature had since amended the Act to provide for an appeal and revision.

3. Exclusion of Legal Practitioners from Appearing Before the Tribunals:
The argument was that Section 48(8), which prohibited legal practitioners from appearing in proceedings before the Tribunals, was repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act. The court adopted the reasoning of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana and directed that Section 48(8) would not be enforced to prevent Advocates from appearing before the Tribunals functioning under the Act. The court did not find it necessary to reopen decisions already rendered by the Tribunals on the ground that legal practitioners were not allowed to appear in those cases.

Conclusion:
All the civil appeals were dismissed without costs. The court upheld the constitutionality of the 1974 Amendment Act, the constitution of the Tribunal, and allowed legal practitioners to appear before the Tribunals.