SREENIVASA VADHYAR Vs. KRISHNASWAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Numerous problems arise with repeal of Statutes and the problem here which is one such is about the scope of the provision in S.132(1) (a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964, allowing the continuance of certain suits after repeal of certain enactments under which those suits had been stayed.

(2.) The enactments repealed by S.132(1)(a) are the Cochin Proclamations XVI of 1122 and VI of 1124, and the Kerala Acts, the Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 18 of 1962, and the Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 7 of 1963. By the Cochin Proclamations among other matters suits for eviction of verumpattomdars to whom the proclamations applied were stayed. By the Agrarian Relations Act, 4 of 1961, a comprehensive legislation relating to Agrarian Reforms applicable to the whole State was enacted. But that Act was held to be invalid so far as certain parts of the State were concerned. It was then that first, Act 18 of 1962 as applicable to the Taluks of Hosdrug and Kasaragod and then Act 7 of 1963 as applicable to the whole State were passed and by those enactments among other matters suits for eviction of tenants and kudikidappukars were stayed.

(3.) Again a comprehensive legislation relating to land reforms applicable to the whole State, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964, was enacted. By S.132(1)(a) of that Act Cochin Proclamations XVI of 1122 and VI of 1124 and Kerala Acts, 18 of 1962 and 7 of 1963, and by S.132(4) Kerala Act 4 of 1961 were repealed. After repealing Cochin Proclamations XVI of 1122 and VI of 1124 and Kerala Acts 18 of 1962 and 7 of 1963 S.132(1) provided that pending suits hit by those enactments may be disposed of according to the provisions of Act 1 of 1964 and after repealing Act 4 of 1961 S.132(4) provided that the repeal of Act 4 of 1961 would not affect certain proceedings started under and rights conferred by that Act and enumerated in S.132(4)(ii) such proceedings and rights. After repealing Act 4 of 1961 and saying that the repeal would not affect matters specified in S.132(4)(ii), to make it clear beyond any doubt that no other right or liability under Act 4 of 1961 would survive the repeal, S.132(4)(iii) provided that as regards all other rights conferred by and liabilities imposed by Act 4 of 1961 one had to proceed as if Act 4 of 1961 had not been enacted at all.