KUNHAHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These original petitions and C.R.P. 124 of 1971 challenge the constitutional validity of S.20 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 Act XI of 1970 (for brevity the Act), in that it is violative of Art.14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Act is claimed by the State to be an ameliorative measure, intended to render relief to agriculturist debtors whose properties have been sold in court sales in execution of decrees obtained against them. S.20 provides for setting aside such sales held after 14-7-58. and restoration of property in cases where the sale has resulted in delivery of possession. S.20 of the Act reads:

(2.) The brunt of the attack is directed against sub-s.(1) and (3), more particularly the latter. The effect of these provisions, according to the petitioners, would be to deprive them of the ownership of the properties that has become vested in them by virtue of the sales, which is a violation of Art.19(1)(f) of the Constitution. There is no intelligible reason, according to the petitioners, to discriminate between a bona fide purchaser at court sale on the one hand, and bona fide purchaser from a court auction purchaser at court sale on the other. This is a clear violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. According to them no circumstances existed warranting the introduction of such a sweeping measure in utter disregard of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The sales having been confirmed, and the execution having been complete the relationship of debtor and creditor no longer subsists, and. therefore, the Act would fall outside the ambit of Entry 30 of List II of the 7th Schedule.

(3.) The State as well as some of the judgment debtors have filed objections. According to the State, the Act is intended to provide relief to indebted agriculturists. As the purchase money is made available for payment to the purchaser, there is no violation of Art.19(1)(f). The Act is a measure of agrarian reform and it is in implementation of such a reform that the rights of the auction purchasers over the property are sought to be extinguished by the section. Such a provision is protected by Art.31A(1) of the Constitution. In any event the impugned provision imposes only a reasonable restriction on the right of the auction purchaser to acquire and hold properties.