9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Bill that became the Act had lapsed before receiving the President's assent. 2. Whether the Act is a piece of colorable legislation beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature. 3. Whether the properties of the petitioners, who are ryotwari pattadars, are estates within the meaning of Article 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution. 4. Whether the Act discriminates against areca and pepper plantations in violation of Article 14. 5. Whether the manner in which the ceiling is fixed under the Act results in discrimination and is therefore violative of Article 14. 6. Whether the progressive reduction in compensation under the Act amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14. Detailed Analysis: Re. (1): Lapse of the Bill The petitioners argued that the Bill, which became the Act, had lapsed before it was assented to by the President. This issue was considered in Writ Petition No. 105 of 1961, where it was held that the Bill did not lapse and validly became law upon the President's assent. Therefore, this ground of attack must fail. Re. (2): Colorable Legislation The petitioners contended that the Act is a piece of colorable legislation, arguing that deductions from the compensation payable to landholders amounted to the acquisition of money by the State, which it is not competent to do. The court referred to the doctrine of colorable legislation, stating that the competence of the legislature to pass a particular law is what matters, not the motive or bona fides. The Act was deemed to fall within the legislative competence of the State legislature under item 18 of List II and item 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. The deductions from compensation were seen as methods for determining compensation, not as devices to acquire money unlawfully. Furthermore, Section 80 of the Act, which provides for the constitution of an agriculturist rehabilitation fund, ensures that any surplus is used for the benefit of those affected by the Act, not for state revenue purposes. Therefore, the Act is not colorable legislation. Re. (3): Definition of "Estates" under Article 31A Article 31A(2)(a) defines "estate" in terms of existing laws relating to land-tenures. The court examined the definition of "estate" in the Madras Estate Land Act, 1908, which was in force in the relevant area. It concluded that ryotwari lands were not included in the definition of "estate" under the existing law. Therefore, the Act is not protected under Article 31A(1) from attack under Articles 14, 19, and 31, as it applies to ryotwari lands in the areas transferred from Madras to Kerala. Re. (4): Discrimination Against Areca and Pepper Plantations The Act exempts tea, coffee, rubber, and cardamom plantations from certain provisions but not areca and pepper plantations. The court found no intelligible differentia justifying this discrimination. Both areca and pepper plantations require significant initial investment and have long economic lives, similar to tea, coffee, and rubber plantations. The court concluded that the exclusion of areca and pepper plantations from the definition of "plantation" under Section 2(39) of the Act is discriminatory and violates Article 14. The provisions relating to plantations are not severable from the Act, leading to the conclusion that the entire Act must be struck down as violative of Article 14. Re. (5): Ceiling Fixation and Discrimination The Act defines "family" in an artificial manner, not conforming to any of the three kinds of families prevalent in the State. This results in discriminatory treatment, as illustrated by the example of an adult unmarried person and a minor orphan, both owning 25 acres of land. The adult unmarried person would have to surrender more land than the minor orphan. The court found no justification for this discriminatory treatment, concluding that Section 58(1) is violative of Article 14. Consequently, the entire Chapter III of the Act must fall. Re. (6): Progressive Reduction in Compensation The Act provides for progressively lower compensation rates for higher slabs of valuation, similar to progressive taxation. However, the court found no rational basis for applying different compensation rates based on the amount of compensation, unlike progressive taxation, which is based on the ability to pay. The court concluded that the progressive cuts in compensation under Sections 52 and 64 result in discrimination and cannot be justified. Therefore, the entire Act must be struck down as violative of Article 14 in its application to ryotwari lands transferred from Madras to Kerala. Separate Judgments: - Sarkar, J.: Agreed with the main judgment but emphasized that progressively lower compensation rates are justified for taxation purposes but not for compensation under eminent domain. Also agreed that the discrimination against areca and pepper plantations is unjustified. - Ayyangar, J.: Agreed with the order to strike down the Act but provided a different reasoning regarding the interpretation of Article 31A(2). Emphasized that ryotwari lands are not "estates" under Article 31A(2) and agreed that the provisions of the Act violate Article 14. Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, and the Act was struck down in relation to its application to ryotwari lands transferred from Madras to Kerala. The petitioners were awarded costs from the State of Kerala.
|
