SUKAPURAM SABHAYOGAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO vital provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment act 27 of 1979, Explanation II added to S. 27 of the Parent Act and the transitory provision, S. 17, are in challenge in this writ petition. Shri. T. R. Govinda Wariyar, counsel appearing for the petitioner has made his submissions on a broad canvas contending that the right to property, no longer a fundamental right, after the 44th Amendment to the Constitution is in a better and favoured position as an ordinary Constitutional right under Article 300 A and thus requiring this Court to consider the scope and content of Article 300 a and also the impact of Article 39 (b)& (c) in Part IV of the Directive principles and the effect of Article 31c of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner, Sukapuram Sabhayogam is a religious institution consisting of the members of the Namboodiri community in Sukapuram gramam, having as its. objects, the performance of certain religious rights and ceremonies and owning several items of properties, mostly in the possession of tenants. When the Kerala Land Reforms Act came into force, the landlord's rights became vested in the Government and the petitioner was entitled only to the compensation amount, as provided under the Act. It is the petitioner's case that several tenants approached the Land Tribunals constituted under the Act for purchase of the petitioner's rights, most of the applications have been disposed of and the purchase price determined under S. 72f of the Act as multiples of the contract rent has been made payable in annual instalments as provided in the Act itself. When finality has been given in almost all cases regarding the purchase price payable by the tenants, the Land Reforms Act was amended in 1979, Explanation II to S. 27 was added which directed contract rent to be determined in a particular way and a transitory provision was inserted enabling the Land Board to reopen orders which became final to refix the compensation amount and to order refund of the excess amount, if any, paid to the land holders.

(3.) THE petitioner has therefore filed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of S. 6 adding Explanation II to S. 27 of the parent Act and the transitory provisions, S. 17 of the Amendment Act 27 of 1979 (for short, 'the Act, hereafter ). Considering the importance of the question raised in the original petition, the matter has been referred to a division Bench and that is how this case has come up before us.