NARAYANAN DAMODARAN Vs. NARAYANA PANICKER PARAMESWARA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases have come before a Full Bench since the constitutional validity of section 4a of the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as amended has been impugned in these cases. In fact, Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1)of the section alone have been impugned in these cases and therefore, the discussion hereinafter will relate only to those two clauses. Since the constitutional validity of the section is impugned, the Advocate General of the State has also appeared.

(2.) IN two of these cases some preliminary objection regarding the application of section 4a has been raised. Under Section 108. Transitory Provisions though some discussion has taken place at the bar, eventually the objection has been dropped; and I am not therefore considering the said objection. And I straightway proceed to consider the merits of the attack on the section. I may also observe at the very outset that the learned Advocate General has conceded before us that his attempt would only be to sustain the constitutional validity of the section under Article 31a of the Constitution and if that protective armour is not available, the section may be declared unconstitutional. Therefore. I need consider in these cases only whether Article 31a of the Constitution protects the section.

(3.) THE Kerala Land Reforms Act was originally enacted in 1963 and there have since been three amendments to the Act, the first in 1966, the next in 1967 and the last, with which we are more concerned, in 1969 by Act 35 of 1969 The original Act of 1963 was put in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, so that the provisions of that Act are immune from attack. Section 4a was not in the original act and was inserted for the first time in 1967 by the second amending Act. And by amending Act 35 of 1969 the Section was recast completely in its present form and substituted Thus, the section has no claim in any form for protection of the ninth Schedule.