PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBUDIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and it seeks to challenge the validity of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act 4 of 1961) (hereafter called the Act). The petitioner owns about 1, 250 acres of land in the Kerala State. These lands were originally situated within the erstwhile State of Cochin which now forms part of the Kerala State. 757 Out of the lands owned by the petitioner nearly 900 acres are classified in the land records maintained by the State as Pandaravaka holdings while the remaining lands are classified as Puravaka holdings. By his petition the petitioner claims a declaration that the Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional and prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent, the State of Kerala, restraining it from implementing the provisions of the Act. It appears that a notification has been issued by the respondent on 15/02/1961, directing the implementation of ss. 1 to 40, 57,58,60,74 to 79 as well as ss. 81 to 95 of the Act from the date of the notification. The petitioner contends that the notification issued under the Act is also ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal and as such he wants an appropriate writ or order to be issued quashing the said notification. That in brief is the nature of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill which has ultimately become the Act was published in the government Gazette of Kerala on 18/12/1957, and was introduced in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on 21/12/1957, by the Communist government which was then in power. THE bill was discussed in the Assembly and was ultimately passed by it on 10/06/1959. It was then reserved by the governor of the State for the assent of the President under Art. 200 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, on 31/07/1959 the President issued a proclamation under Art. 356 and the Assembly was dissolved. In February 1960 midterm general elections took place in Kerala and as a result a coalition government came into power. On 27/07/1960, the President for whose assent the bill was pending sent it back with his message requesting the Legislative Assembly to reconsider the bill in the light of the specific amendments suggested by him. On 2/08/1960, the governor returned the bill 758 remitted by the President with his message and the amendments suggested by him to the new Assembly for consideration. On 26/09/1960, the amendments suggested by the President were taken up for consideration by the Assembly and ultimately on 15/10/1960, the bill as amended in the light of the President's recommendations was passed by the Assembly. It then received the assent of the President on 21/01/1961, and after it thus became law the impugned notification was issued by the respondent on 15/02/1961. On 9/03/1961, the present writ petition was filed.

(3.) IT is also urged that in dealing with the effect of the relevant provisions of the legislative procedure prescribed by Art. 196 it would be necessary to bear in mind that the powers of the legislature which are recognised in England will also be available to the State Legislature under Art. 194 (3). The argument is that whether or not a successor Legislative Assembly can carry on with the business pending before its predecessor at the time of its dissolution is really 763 a matter of the power of the Legislature and as such the powers of the Legislative Assembly shall be 'such as may from time to time be defined, by the Legislature by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its Members and Committees, at the commencement of this Constitution'. In other words, this argument assumes that the conventional position with regard to the effect of dissolution of Parliament which prevails in England is expressly saved in India by virtue of Art. 194(3) until a definite law is passed by the State Legislature in that behalf to the contrary. IT would be noticed that this argument purports to supply a constitutional basis for the contention which we have already set out that the word 'dissolution' is a term of art and its effect should be the same in India as it is in England. IT may incidentally be pointed out that the corresponding provisions for our Parliament are contained in Art. 104(3).