KRISHNAKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 747 of 1974.

(2.) These petitions relate to the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.

(3.) The Act as its long title shows was enacted to provide for the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, acquisition and disposal of surplus land and matters ancillary thereto. The Act as originally enacted was assented to by the President on 28th September 1960. The Act was, thereafter, amended eight times. The Amending Acts are Acts Nos. 35 of 1961, 38 of 1965, 25 of 1966, 12 of 1974, 13 of 1973, 20 of 1974, 2 of 1976 and 37 of 1976. The principal Act as also the Amending Acts up to Act No. 20 of 1976, have been inserted from time to time in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. In Waman Roo v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271, the Supreme Court has ruled that Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule before 24th April 1973 are protected by Article 31-B and cannot be challenged. It was, however, ruled in the same case that amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April 1973 by which the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution was amended from time to time by the inclusion of various Acts and Regulations therein are open to challenge on the ground that they or any one or more of them are beyond the constituent power of Parliament since they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure. Amending Acts Nos. 12 of 1974. 13 of 1'974 and 20 of 1974 which amended the principal Act considerably were enacted after 24th April 1973 and were inserted in the Ninth Schedule thereafter. The amendments brought about by these Acts can, therefore, be challenged on the ground that they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure. It was, however, further ruled in Waman Rao's case that if an Act inserted in the Ninth Schedule on or after Apr. 24, 1973 is saved by Article 31-A or by Article 31-C as it stood prior to its amendment by the 42nd Amendment, the challenge to the validity of the relevant constitutional amendment by which that Act is put in the Ninth Schedule on the ground that the amendment damages or destroys the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure as reflected in Article 14, or Article 19 or Article 31 will become otiose. The same ruling upheld the validity of Article 31A and Article 31-C (to the extent held valid in Kesavanand). In Waman Rao's case the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. Similar challenges directed against other State Acts were also rejected by the Supreme Court: (see T. Venkaiah v. State of A. P., AIR 1980 SC 1568 (Andhra Pradesh Act); Ambika Prasad v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 1762 (U. P. Act); Nandlal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 2097 (Haryana Act); and Sasanka Sekhar Maity v. Union of India. (1980) 4 SCC 716: (AIR 1981 SC 522) (West Bengal Act). In view of all these decisions, learned counsel appearing in these petitions were faced with a formidable task of arguing these petitions, nevertheless they have argued certain points which we will deal with hereinafter.