16

AGRARIAN REFORMS

M.L. Upadhyaya

The Perspective
The Supreme Court of India has, in the fifty years since the
commencement of the Constitution, made a significant contribution
in interpreting constitutional provisions on the right to property,
directive principles of state policy and the legislation on agrarian
reforms keeping in view an inarticulate premise of land to the
tiller. In the Setalvad lectures delivered by the author in the
University of Bombay earlier this year, it has been observed that
the Supreme Court has treated this inarticulate premise as a
foundation which gave meaning and content to the various
provisions in the Constitution and agrarian reform legislation.1
The Indian agrarian reform programme is older than the
Constitution. 'Land to the tiller' was part of our freedom struggle.
The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee had prepared a
detailed programme on agrarian reforms. The aim was to free
the agrarian system from exploitative elements. The Permanent
Settlement introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in the then

'The lectures are being published in a book form by the National Law
School of India University, Bangalore under the title Agrarian Reform
Legislation under the Constitution of India.
570 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and subsequently extended

to other areas needed to be annulled. All intermediary interests in
estates between the actual cultivator and the State needed to be
terminated. In the new agrarian structure envisaged by the
committee, the cultivators would hold land directly under the
State and would pay a fixed sum as land revenue. Tenants under
private landlords would enjoy security of tenure and fixity
of rent. 2
In provinces where the Congress party had come to power
under the Government of India Act, 1935, legislation on
zamindari, talukdari, malgujari, jagirdari, and other intermediary
tenures had been introduced. The Act did not contain guarantee
of fundamental rights. 3 The demand made by the All Parties
Conference at Lucknow for inclusion of fundamental rights in the
new Constitution was rejected by the Simon Commission. The
Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Government of India Bill,
1935 had rejected the idea, but felt it necessary to make a suitable
provision in the Act of 1935 for protecting the interests of
zamindars and other intermediary tenure holders. The protection
was contained in sections 299 and 300 of the Government of
India Act, 1935. 4 Thus when the provinces introduced legislation
for abolition of zamindaris, etc. they had to comply with the
requirements of these sections. The inter-pretation of these
provisions by the Federal Court and the Privy Council was there
to support the view that the provincial legislatures by enacting
suitable legislation were competent to annul the Permanent
Settlement Regulations of 1793. 5
The Constituent Assembly while drafting a suitable provision
on the protection of right to property as a fundamental right was

2
See chapter II of the above book on 'Pre Independence Agrarian
Structure'.
3
See Motilal Nehru Report of 1928 on the demand for fundamental
rights and the recommendations to the contrary by the Simon
Commission, (1928) and the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the
Government of India Bill, 1935.
4
Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee para 369 cited in C.L.
Anand, Constitutional Law and History of Government of India (1990,
Allahabad, 6th edn).
Sjagannath Baksh v United Provinces AIR 1943 FC 29; Thakur
Jagannath Baksh Singh v United Provinces 73 LA. 123.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 571

aware of the working of sections 299 and 300 of the Government

of India Act, 1935 and their interpretation by the Federal Court
and the Privy Council in cases concerning legislation on land
tenures. Thus after a prolonged debate and discussion it adopted
the provision contained in these sections as right to property in
article 31 of the Constitution. 6 But the makers of the Constitution
made special provision in clauses (4) and (6) of article 31 to
protect legislation on agrarian reforms that was either pending
before the provincial legislative assemblies or was on the anvil.

The Task Ahead

Soon after the Constitution come into force, the erstwhile
zamindars where zamindaris had been abolished filed writ
petitions in various high courts. The High Court of Allahabad
upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950. 7 Likewise, the High Court of Nagpur
upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,
1950. 8 But the High Court of Patna declared the Bihar Land
6
Article 31 of the Constitution at the commencement of the
Constiution read:
Compulsory acquisition of property: (1) No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law...
(4) If any bill pending at the commencement of this Constitution in the
Legislature of a State has, after it has been passed by such Legislature, hcen
reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, then,
notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the law so assented to shall not
be railed in question in any court on the ground that it contravenes the
provisions of cl. (2)...
(6) Any law of the State enacted no more than eighteen months before the
commencement of this Constitution may within three months from such
commencement be submitted to the President for his certification; and
thereupon, if the President by public notification so certifies, it shall not be called
in question in any court on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of
cl. (2) of this article or has contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of s.299
of the Government of India Act, 1935.
7
Surya Pal Singh v Uttar Pradesh Government (FB) AIR 1951 All. 674.
*State of Bihar v Katneshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252 mentions the fact
that the High Court of Nagpur had dismissed the petition on 9 April
1951.
572 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Reforms Act, 1950 as unconstitutional for it violated of article

14, the principle prescribed for payment of compensation to
erstwhile zamindars had classified them in separate classes based
on their annual net income. This judgement was rendered on 12
March 1951. 9 This provoked a prompt reaction from the
government. It was decided to amend the Constitution so as to
protect agrarian reform legislation beyond challenge. Introducing
the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951, B.R. Ambedkar,
the then Union Law Minister stated in the Statement of Objects
and Reasons:
The validity of agrarian reform measures passed by the State
legislatures in the last three years has, in spite of the provisions of
clauses (4) and (6) of article 31, formed the subject matter of dilatory
litigation, as a result of which the implementation of these important
measures, affecting large numbers of people has been held up. The
main objects of this bill are ... to insert provisions fully securing the
constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws in general and
certain specified Acts in particular.10

T h e bill when passed by Parliament became the Constitution

(First Amendment) Act, 1951. It came into force with retrospective
effect from the date of commencement of the Constitution. T h e
a m e n d m e n t inserted articles 3 1 A and 3 I B and t h e N i n t h
Schedule t o the Constitution. 1 1 Article 31A was in the nature of
an exception t o article 3 1 . It stipulated that laws providing for
9
Kameshn>ar Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1951 Pat. 9 1 .
10
R.C. Bhardwaj (ed.), Constitution Amendment in India (1995, Lok
Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi), at 15-16.
"Articles 31A and 3IB read as under:
31A: Saving of laws providing for acquisition or' estates, etc. - (1) Notwith­
standing anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for: (a) the
acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the
extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or (b) the taking over of the
management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the
public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property; or
... shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes
away or abridges any of the rights conferred by | Article 14 or Article 19]....
(2) In this article - (a) the expression 'estate' shall in relation to any local area,
have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in tht
existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area ... (b) the expression
'rights' in relation to an estate, shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor
sub-proprietory, under-proprietor, tenure-holder (raiyat, under-raiyat), or other
intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 573

acquisition by the State of rights in estate shall not be deemed to

be void on the ground of being inconsistent with any of the
provisions of Part III. The expressions 'estate' and 'rights in
relation to an estate' were also defined therein. Article 3IB
provided for validation of Acts and Regulations included in the
Ninth Schedule notwithstanding any judgement, decree or order
of any court or tribunal to the contrary. The Ninth Schedule at
that time contained a list of thirteen enactments. The Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950 was included at serial number one in this list.
The constitutional validity of the (First Amendment) was
challenged in the Supreme Court on various grounds. A
Constitution bench by a unanimous judgement and order dated 5
October 1951 upheld the validity of the impugned Act.12 Two
broad propositions laid down in this judgement may be noted.
The court held that an amendment of the Constitution under
article 368 is not law within the meaning of article 13 and as such
the prohibition in article 13(2) does not apply to an amendment
which takes away or abridges a fundamental right. Accordingly,
the abridgement of article 31 by newly inserted articles 31A and
3IB was upheld as valid. The court also held that the provision
made in articles 31A and 3IB did not directly affect the
jurisdiction of High Court and the Supreme Court and as such
ratification of the impugned amendment by not less than one half
of the states was not required. This shows the court's anxiety to
protect agrarian reform legislation against technical hurdles
created by a narrow pedantic view of a constitutional provision.

Protection to Agrarian Reform

Appeals and petitions in agrarian reform matters proper were
pending before the court and were being argued before and heard

31B: Validation of certain Acts and Regulations: Without prejudice to the

generality of the provisions contained in Article 31 A, none of the Acts and
Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof
shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that
such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes awav or abridges
any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding
any judgement, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary; each of
the said Acts and Regulations, shall, subject to the power of any competent
Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.
u
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India AIR 1951 SC 458.
574 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

by the court while deciding upon the validity of the First

Amendment Act. The court could see how its judgement would
affect the validity of agrarian reform legislation in these appeals
and petitions. The judgement in these appeals and petitions was
pronounced on 2 and 5 May 1952. Patanjali Sastri, J, who had
written the unanimous judgement of the court in Shankan Prasad
had now become the Chief Justice in place of Kania, CJ. It was
he who wrote the leading judgement in the first ever agrarian
reform case decided by the Supreme Court.
An appeal by the State of Bihar against the judgement and
order dated 12 March 1951 was the first ever case before the
Supreme Court in which the validity of the agrarian reform
legislation was questioned. This appeal was heard along with the
appeal against the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad in
the Uttar Pradesh Act and a petition questioning the validity of
the Madhya Pradesh Act. The case was decided after the First
Amendment was enacted on 18 June 1951 and its validity was
upheld by the court vide judgement and order dated 5 October
1951.
The five judges constituting the Constitution bench wrote five
separate judgements. Patanjali Sastri, CJ, wrote a common judge­
ment disposing of all the appeals and petitions. Mahajan, J, wrote
a separate judgement in each of the appeals and petitions. The
order of the court stated that the Bihar Act was declared to be
valid except sections 4(b) and 23(f) which were declared to be
unconstitutional and void. The Uttar Pradesh Act and the Madhya
Pradesh Act were declared to be valid in their entirety.13
The court proceeded on the basis of the major inarticulate
premise that in view of the provision contained in article 31 A, it
was not open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the
impugned laws on the ground of their alleged inconsistency with
any provision of Part ΙΠ. But the provision in the Bihar Act that
the arrears due from zamindars might be adjusted against
compensation payable to them was held to be unconstitutional.
The court felt that the impugned provision was not related to
agrarian reform and hence not protected by article 31 A. The fact
that the impugned Act was included in the Ninth Schedule was
also held to be of no avail. In spite of this, we would emphasize

li
Supra, note 8.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 575

that the judgement has significantly contributed to the develop­

ment of the law on two other points.
The court, while rejecting the contention that the Bihar Act
was a fraud on the Constitution, made the following observation:
It is by no means easy to impute a dishonest motive to the legislature
of a State and hold that it acted 'mala fide' and maliciously in passing
the Bihar Land Reforms Act or that it perpetrated a fraud on the
Constitution by enacting this law. It may be that some of the
provisions of the Act may operate harshly on certain persons or a few
of the Zamindars and may be bad if they are in excess of the legislative
power of the Bihar Legislature but from that circumstance it does not
follow that the whole enactment is a fraud on the Constitution.14
But the court accepted the contention that section 23(f) which
provided for certain deductions from the gross assets of zamindars
was a piece of colourable legislation. The court observed:
This provision, therefore, in my opinion, has been inserted in the Act
as a colourable exercise of legislative power ... and is unconstitutional
on that ground.... Legislation ostensibly under one or other of the
powers conferred by the Constitution but in truth and fact not falling
within the content of that power is merely colourably Constitutional
but is really not so.15
This case remains a landmark in the development of the law on
the subject as it paved the way and formed the basis of inter­
pretation of the relevant constitutional provisions in future
agrarian reform cases.
The next case in this area came through six appeals against the
judgement of the High Court of Orissa upholding the validity of
the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952. 16 A Constitution bench,
headed by Patanjali Sastri, CJ, dismissed the appeals by its
judgement dated 29 May 1953. 17 The unanimous judgement did
not accept the contention that the impugned legislation was a
piece of colourable legislation. The court held that the impugned
Act was protected by articles 31(4) and 31 A. In retrospect, we
may say that these two cases, namely Kameshwar Singh and

14
Ibid. at 276.
15
Ibid. at 277.
16
KC. Gajapati Narayan Deo v State of Orissa AIR 1953 Ori 185.
l7
K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375.
576 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Gajapati Narayan Deo, have become authorities on the doctrine of

colourable legislation.
In the next case, the constitutional validity of the Madras
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was
upheld by a Constitution bench headed by Mahajan, CJ. 18 This
Act was enacted by the Provincial Legislative Assembly of Madras
functioning under the Government of India Act, 1935. This was
assented to by the Governor-General of India on 2 April 1949.
The object of the Act was to abolish the zamindari system by
repealing the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulations of 1802
to acquire the rights of landholders in the permanently settled and
other estates and to introduce the ryotwari system in all such
estates. Under article 31(6) of the Constitution the Act was
reserved for the certification of the President and it was duly
certified on 12 April 1950.
Similarly, a Constitution bench upheld the validity of the
Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagir Act, 1951 by its judgement and
order dated 2 February 1954 rejecting a technical objection that
the Act was enacted by the Raj Pramukh exercising the legislative
powers as the Legislative Assembly had not been constituted. The
situation was covered by article 385 and as such there was no
constitutional infirmity.
Then a Constitution bench by its judgement and order dated
11 October 1954 upheld the validity of the Bombay Taluqdari
Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 against much graver objections. 20
The Act was passed in 1949 by the provincial legislative assembly
functioning under the Government of India Act, 1935. The Act
was assented to by the Governor-General on 18 January 1950.
After the commencement of the Constitution, article 31(6)
required that it should be reserved for the certification of the
President and the President should certify it. This was not done.
However, it was included in the Ninth Schedule by the
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
The petitioner's contention was that the impugned Act was
protected by article 3 IB and as such not open to challenge against
any provision of Part III of the Constitution; but it was open to

ls
Zamindar of Ettayapuram v State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 257.
l9
Maloji Rao v State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1954 SC 259.
20
Dhirubha Devi Singh v State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 47.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 577

challenge against section 299(2) of the Government of India Act,

1935 even after it had been repealed by article 395 of the
Constitution. The court rejected this contention and held that
section 299(2) stood merged in article 31(2) on and from the
date of commencement of the Constitution and as such the
impugned Act could not be challenged on any such ground. This
is indeed an imaginative interpretation of the Constitution which
could protect an urgent measure of reform five years after its
enactment and enforcement.
Similarly, the court upheld the validity of the Rajasthan Land
Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 by its judgement
and order dated 15 April 1955. The Act had already come into
force on 18 February 1952. The Act, though enacted by the Raj
Pramukh as the Legislative Assembly liad not been constituted,
was held to be protected by article 31A.21
The court also upheld the validity of the Bombay Merged
Territories and Áreas (Jagir Abolition) Act, 1954 by its judge­
ment and order dated 6 April 1955. In this case, the ex-Ruler of
the merged territories took the plea that the merger of the
territories was covered by the instrument of accession executed by
the Ruler with the Union of India whereunder the Union had
guaranteed to the Ruler continued enjoyment of his jagirs. The
state legislature, therefore, had no legislative competence to
abolish the jagirs. The court held that the legislature had the
legislative competence to abolish the jagirs, and the impugned
legislation, being protected by article 31 A, was not open to
challenge on the ground of inconsistency with other provisions of
Part III of the Constitution. 22
The validity of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act,
1951 was questioned on a novel technical objection. The Act had
been passed in January 1950 and had been sent to the Governor-
General in January 1950. The Governor-General returned it
without his assent but with a suggestion that it should be sent to
the President for his assent. The President gave his assent on 27
July 1951. The petitioner contended that the bill was passed
under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935 and
with the repeal of the Act on 26 January 1950, the bill did not

n
Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1955 SC 504.
12
Umc¿) Singh v State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 540.
578 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

survive nor was it pending on 26 January 1950. A Constitution

bench of the court held, however, that the bill survived the repeal
of the Government of India Act, 1935, that it was pending on 26
January 1950, that on receiving the assent of the President it
became a valid law and the same was protected by articles 31(4)
and 31A against any challenge.23
The Jagir Abolition Regulations of Hyderabad State, promulgated
in 1949 and certified by the President in 1950 under article 31(6)
of the Constitution, were included in the Ninth Schedule by the
(First Amendment). These were challenged before the high court
unsuccessfully. On appeal to the Supreme Court their validity was
upheld. 24
The court upheld the validity of such legislation in many other
cases that followed. Thus the validity of the following Acts was
upheld:
- The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and
Land Reforms Act, 1954. 25
- The Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms
Act, 1 9 5 2 / 6
- The Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms
Act, 1955. 27
- The Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1953. 28
- The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961. 29
A brief comment on the decision on the validity of the Kerala
Agrarian Relations Act, 1961 is necessary. Three petitions were
filed questioning its validity. They were heard together, but the
Constitution bench that heard the petitions decided to deliver two
separate judgements. Both are judgements of the same bench and
delivered on the same date, 5 December 1961. In the judgement
written by Gajendragadkar, J, Petition No. 105 of 1961 was
disposed of. The petitioner's contention was that since he was
holding land directly under the State, with no intermediary in
2i
Bhairbendra Narayan Bhup v State of Assam AIR 1956 SC 503.
2i
Sarwaralal v State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC 862.
25
Jadab Singh v Himachal Pradesh Administration AIR 1960 SC 1008.
26
State of Vindhya Pradesh v Moradhwaj Singh AIR 1970 SC 796.
27
Raghubir Singh v State of Ajmer AIR 1959 SC 475.
2S
Gangadhar Rao v State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 288.
29
Purushothaman v State of Kerala AIR 1962 SC 694.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 579

between, the land held by him was not estate. The court rejected
this contention and held that the land held by him was estate
within the meaning of article 31A and as such the impugned law
was beyond challenge.
Another judgement written by Wanchoo, J, decided Writ
Petitions No. 114 and 115 of 1961. The petitioners were holders
of ryotwari lands in the former state of Madras. On reorganization
of states in 1956, the South Cañara area which was part of
Madras state was transferred to the state of Kerala. In relation to
such area, the court found that the same not being estate under
article 31A was open to challenge. In fact, arguments were heard
in support of the challenge and certain provisions were declared
to be unconstitutional. 30
The judgement in this case led to an amendment of the
Constitution. The definition of the expression 'estate' in article
31A was amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)
Act, 1964 so as to include all kinds of agricultural land called by
any vernacular name in the local law of land tenure. Apart from
this, 'any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for
purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest land, land
for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by
cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans,' was
added to the definition. This comprehensive definition now
protects all measures of agrarian reform. In the last thirty-five
years, neither has this definition been amended nor has any
agrarian measure been held to be unconstitutional on the ground
that it was not protected by article 31 A.
Six petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning the
constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment. 31 The only
question raised in these petitions was that the impugned
amendment Act was invalid as it was not ratified by not less than
one half of the states as required under the proviso to article 368
of the Constitution. It was contended that die amendment altered
the powers and jurisdiction of high courts under article 226 and
as such it fell within the proviso to article 368. A plea was also
made for reconsideration of the decision in Shankari Prasad Singh
Deo}2 The Supreme Court rejected the contention and held that:
30
K. Kunhikoman v State of Kerala AIR 1962 SC 723.
31
Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845.
n
Supra, note 12.
580 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

If the pith and substance test is applied to the amendment made by

the impugned Act, the effect of the amendment on the area over
which the High' Court's powers prescribed by Article 226 operate, is
incidental and in the present case can be described as of insignificant
order. 33

And further: 'In our opinion, the plea made by the petitioners
for reconsidering Shankari Prasad's case is wholly unjustified and
rejected.'34
This was the majority view. This judgement was given on 30
October 1964. While the validity of the First Amendment was
upheld by a unanimous judgement of the Constitution bench in
Shankari Prasad, the bench was divided in Sajjan Singh, with two
of the five judges dissenting from the majority view. The two
dissenting judgements led to the" matter being referred to the full
court of eleven judges.

Prospective Overruling to Protect Agrarian

Reforms
The full bench in Golak Nath reconsidered the earlier two cases
and took a different view.35 But what is important for our
purposes is that the Supreme Court, even while taking a different
view on the scope of amending power of Parliament, ensured the
protection of much-needed measures of agrarian reform. Thus the
majority of the court held that an amendment being law cannot
take away or abridge fundamental rights and as such the impugned
amendment Acts to that extent were unconstitutional and void.
But in view of the fact that acting on the validity of these
amendments, an agrarian revolution had taken place, millions of
acres of land had changed hands and any action to the contrary
might bring about chaos, a novel device was devised to protect
agrarian reform measures. The bench, presided over by Subba
Bao, CJ, applied the doctrine of prospective ruling for the first
time in India to protect the agrarian reform legislation. This
judgement was delivered on 27 February 1967. To overcome the
limitations imposed on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution,
33
Ibid.
at 853.
34
Ibid.
at 855.
is
Golak Nath v State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 581

the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 was

passed. Parliament also enacted the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth
Amendment) Act, 1971 to protect legislation giving effect to the
directive principles of State policy contained in article 39(b) and
(c) against any challenge based on articles 14, 19 and 31.

Agrarian Reform Survives Basic Structure

Doctrine
Parliament also enacted the Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment)
Act, 1972 inserting two more Acts in the Ninth Schedule. A
landholder in Kerala, aggrieved by the inclusion of the Kerala
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and the Kerala Land
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 in the Ninth Schedule by the
Twenty Ninth Amendment, petitioned the Supreme Court
questioning the validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th amendments.
The court in its decision rendered on 24th April 1973, upheld the
validity of these amendments.
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976
further amended article 31C so as to give primacy to directive
principles of State policy on fundamental rights. The validity of
this amendment was questioned in Minerva Mills36 on the
touchstone of basic structure doctrine propounded in Kesavananda
Bharati.37 The majority judgement declared the amendment made
in article 31C by the Forty-Second Amendment as unconstitutional
for being violative of the basic structure theory. In spite of this,
article 31C as it existed before the Forty-Second Amendment
remains valid. This decision was rendered on 9 May 1980.
The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 omitted
article 31 with effect from 20 June 1979. This amendment also
inserted a new article 300A on the right to property in chapter TV
of part XII of the Constitution. A few other consequential
changes were also made. Reference to article 31 in articles 31A
and 31C was deleted. Article 19(l)(f) guaranteeing freedom to
acquire, hold and dispose of property was also deleted. The

Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.

7
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
582 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

precise effect of deletion of articles 19(1 )(f) and 31 is beyond the

scope of this study.
In Waman Rao,38 the question for consideration was whether
the enactments included in the Ninth Schedule are beyond
challenge as stated in article 3 IB or are open to challenge on the
ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution. On
this point, the court observed in its order dated 9 May 1980: 39
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 which introduced
article 31A into the Constitution with retrospective effect, and
section 3 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 which
substituted a new clause (1), sub-clauses (a) to (e), for the original
clause (1) with retrospective effect, do not damage any of the basic or
essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure and are
valid and constitutional being within the constituent power of
Parliament.
We hold that all amendments to the Constitution which were made
before April 24, 1973 and by which the 9th Schedule to the
Constitution was amended from time to time by the inclusion of
various Acts and Regulations therein, are valid and constitutional.
Amendments to the Constitution made on or after April 24, 1973 by
which the 9th 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 the Parliament since they
damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic
441
structure.
In the years since Waman Rao (1980) there has been no major
decision by the Supreme Court on the constitutional validity of an
agrarian reform legislation. In terms of Waman Rao, Acts and
regulations included in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973
do not damage or destroy the basic structure and as such are
valid and constitutional. Articles 31 A, 3 IB and 31C have been
upheld as valid and constitutional in Kesavananda Bharati as well
as in Woman Rao.41 The validity of the Constitution (Forty-Fourth

ia
Waman Rao v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 271.
'39Incidentally, the decision in Minerva MiUs was also given on 9 May
1980.
'^'This is the date on which the decision in Kesavananda Bharati was
given.
*lSupm, note 38 at 275.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 583

Amendment) Act, 1978 deleting articles 19(1 )(d) and 31 and

adding a new article 300A has not been questioned. However in
1995 the court had the opportunity of deciding the validity
of a law included in the Ninth Schedule in the present-day
constitutional position. 42
The Bombay Land Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition
Laws (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1982 (Gujarat Act 8 of 1982)
was included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Sixty-
Sixth Amendment) Act, 1990 with effect from 7 June 1990. The
Act was enforced with retrospective effect from 1 May 1960, the
date on which the separate state of Gujarat came into being. The
appellants in this case contended that the impugned law was not
a law on agrarian reform and was not protected by article 31 A,
that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution and as such
was not protected by article 3IB, that it did not implement
directive principles of State policy contained in article 39(b) and
(c) and as such was not protected by article 31C and was open
to challenge for being inconsistent with articles 14 and 21. The
Supreme Court rejected all these contentions and held that the
impugned law was protected by articles 31A, 3IB and 31C and
k
added that the right to property under article 300A was not a
basic feature of the Constitution but it was only a constitutional
right. 43

Legislation on Tenancy Reforms Upheld

The contribution of the Supreme Court in upholding the validity
of other measures of agrarian reform, such as tenancy laws,
ceilings on landholdings and the consolidation of landholdings, is
equally significant. A few decisions of the court have become
landmark decisions and have paved the way for liberal inter­
s e c t i o n 4 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act,
1976 had further amended article 31C which was declared
unconstitutional as being destructive of the basic structure of the
Constitution in Minerva Mills by a majority. The views to the contrary
by Bhagwati, J, in Minerva Mills and by Chinnappa Reddy, J, in Sanjiv
Coke are not relevant for our present purpose.
4i
Jilubbai Nambbai Khachar v State of Gujarat AIR 1995 SC 142.
584 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

pretation of beneficial legislation and as such deserve a mention

and brief discussion.
The Permanent Settlement Regulations of 1793 contained a
provision that tenancy laws should be enacted making adequate
provision to ensure security of tenure and fixity of rent. Tenancy
laws were accordingly enacted to protect the tenants against
unlawful eviction and unjust enhancement of rent. The validity of
all such laws was upheld by the Federal Court and the Privy
Council. In spite of there being adequate provision in law, the
landlords exploited the tenants in diverse ways. This led to the
policy of land to the tiller, which conferred ownership rights on
the tenants. The erstwhile landlords created numerous difficulties
in the process of effective implementation of such beneficial laws,
including taking the matter to the courts. The Supreme Court,
appreciating the true purport of these laws, interpreted them
imaginatively so as to further the agrarian reform programme
aimed at development with social justice.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was
included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. The Act of 1948 was thereafter
amended by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1956. In November 1956 six writ petitions
were filed in the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the
amendment Act. The petitioners contended that the state legislature
had no competence to enact the impugned legislation, that the
impugned legislation was not protected by article 31 A, that it
violated articles 14, 19 and 31 and it was a piece of colourable
legislation.44
Bhagwati, J, who wrote the unanimous judgement of the
Constitution bench examined all these contentions in detail. He
referred to a number of books on the law of land tenures in
India, referred to a substantial body of case law comprising
decisions of the federal courts, rejected all these contentions and
upheld the validity of the amendment Act.,
The same Constitution bench, speaking through B.P. Sinha, J,
(as he then was), upheld the validity of the Punjab Security Land
Tenures Act, 1953 as amended by Act 11 of 1955. 45 In both
cases, the court held that the impugned law was within the

•"Ibid, at 157.
45
Sri Ram Narain Medhi v State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 585

legislative competence of the state, was protected by article 31A

and was not open to challenge for being inconsistent with articles
14, 19 and 31. These decisions paved the way for upholding
the validity of a comprehensive programme of agrarian reform
legislation.

Legislation on Ceilings Upheld

These decisions were followed in subsequent cases involving
questions of the validity of laws imposing ceilings on agricultural
holdings. Accordingly, the court upheld the validity of the
following enactments, to name only a few: (i) The Assam Fixation
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1957; 46 (ii) The Orissa Land
Reforms Act, I960; 4 7 (iii) The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961; 48 (iv) The Kerala Land Reforms
Act, 1964; 49 (v) The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, I960; 5 0 and (vi) The West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955. 51
The ceiling legislation came before the court in three stages.
The legislation to impose ceilings on agricultural landholdings
was enacted between 1959 and 1970. The legislation fixed a
maximum limit beyond which a tenure holder was not allowed to
hold land in his own name or in the name of other members of
his family. It also contained a provision to ignore all transfers of
land effected with a view to defeat the provision of ceiling law. In
the next stage, that is after 1972, in pursuance of national
guidelines, the ceiling limit was lowered by amending the ceiling
laws. Then an artificial definition of 'family' as a unit for
computation of ceiling-surplus area was laid down. The Supreme
Court upheld the validity of all these measures as covered by
articles 31A, 31B and 31C. 52

"Atma Ram v State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 519. Incidentally, it was

the same bench which had decided Raghubir Singh, supra, note 27.
*7Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd v Deputy Commissioner AIR 1962 SC 137.
*8Orissa State v Cbandrasekhar AIR 1970 SC 398.
45
'State of Maharashtra v Madhav Rao AIR 1968 SC 1395.
50
Kunju Kutty v State of Kerala AIR 1972 SC 2097.
51x
Attar Singh v State of UP AIR 1959 SC 564 at 567.
52
Sasanka Sekhar Matty v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 522 and
Madhusudan Singh v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 374.
586 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Consolidation Laws Upheld

Regarding legislation on consolidation of small landholdings into
compact blocks, the court appreciating the philosophy behind the
measure, upheld its validity. Small and fragmented landholdings
were considered to be economically unviable and hence the need
for consolidation. The consolidation operations have been a great
success in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. Every year a few important
matters on consolidation operations are decided by the court
following its own landmark judgement in which the validity of
the Uttar Pradesh legislation was upheld. 53
The United Provinces was the first province to enact the
United Provinces Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1939. The
province of Bombay was next to enact the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. After
coming into force of the Constitution, the state of Uttar Pradesh
enacted the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act, 1954. The Act of
1954 was amended in 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957. A petition
was filed in 1957 questioning the validity of the Act of 1954 as
amended till 1957 on the following grounds:
1. The Act gave arbitrary powers to the state government to
give discriminatory treatment to tenure holders in different
villages by including some villages in the consolidation
scheme while excluding others thus violating article 14 of the
Constitution.
2. The Act provided a procedure for correction and revision of
revenue records for villages under consolidation which was
vitally different from that applicable to villages not under
consolidation and thus discriminated violating article 14.
The court rejected both contentions and observed:
There is no doubt that there is some difference between the procedure
provided under the Act and that which the tenure-holders would have
been entitled to, if their village was not under consolidation. But
consolidation is a boon to the tenure holders of a village, as we hold
it is, and if consolidation is to be put through,... there must be a more
expeditious procedure, there is in our opinion rational basis for
classification which justifies the procedure.... The attack, therefore,
under article 14... fails.54

Supra, note 1.
^Supra, note 52.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 587

In 1964, the validity of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation

and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as amended by
the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1960
was questioned on the ground of inconsistency with articles
29(1 )(f) and 31. The appellants contended that the consolidation
of holdings was not a measure of agrarian reform. The Supreme
Court rejected this contention and held that expressions such as
'estate' and 'rights in estate' in article 31A must be given a liberal
meaning. The court, therefore, held that: 'Consolidation of
holdings is really nothing more than a proper planning of rural
areas and thus planning must of necessity take note of vacant and
waste lands.' 55

Liberal View of Agrarian Reform

Hidayatullah, J, who wrote the unanimous judgement of the
Constitution bench referred to many previous judgements of the
court interpreting agrarian reform measures liberally and added
the following observation:
The scheme of rural development today envisages not only equitable
distribution of land so that there is no undue imbalance in society
resulting in a landless class on the one hand and a concentration of
land in the hands of a few, on the other, but envisages also the raising
of economic standards and bettering rural health and social conditions.
If agrarian reforms are to succeed, mete distribution of land to the
landless is not enough. There must be a proper planning of rural
economy and conditions and a body like the Village Panchayat is best
designed to promote rural welfare than individual owners of small
portions of lands.56
In this case, the court upheld the provision which required
every landholder covered by a consolidation scheme to leave apart
a fixed portion of land for village panchayat to use for common
village purposes. The law did not provide for any compensation
to be paid to the landowner for the portion so left by him which
was to vest in the Gram Panchayat and it was held to be valid as

'Ibid.
'Ranjit Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 632 at 637.
588 FIFTY YEARS OF THE SUPREME COURT

part of agrarian reform measure so as to cover proper planning

for rural development.
In 1973, soon after deciding Kesavtmanda Bharati, a Constitution
bench upheld the validity of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting
and Assignment) Act, 1971 as part of agrarian reform and as such
protected by article 31 A. 57 In this case, Krishna Iyer, J, cited from
the earlier cases such as Sr. Ram Ram Narayan Medhi and Ranjit
Singh and observed:
The concept of agrarian reform is a complex and dynamic one
promoting wider interests than conventional reorganisation of the
land system or distribution of land. It is intended to ... include ...
creation of economic units of rural production, establishment of
adequate credit system, implementation of modern production
techniques, construction of irrigation systems and adequate drainage,
making available fertilisers, fungicides, herbicides and other methods
of intensifying and increasing agricultural production, providing
readily available means of communication and transportation to
facilitate proper marketing of the village produce and... help solve
social problems that are found in relation to the life of the agricultural
community. The village man, his welfare, is the target.58
In view of the above, since 1973 and after, the entire gamut of
rural development is part of agrarian reform and legislation to
give effect to all such schemes is protected by article 31 A.
This liberal view has influenced subsequent developments up
to Waman Rao59 noted above. Now it is for the government to
formulate plans for rural development related to agrarian reform.
The court has given the widest possible interpretation to the
words 'any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for
purposes ancillary thereto' so as to include all measures of rural
development. Now it seems government initiative is lacking in
making the fullest possible use of this liberal interpretation.

Conclusion
The foregoing assessment of the contribution of the Supreme
Court in interpreting the Constitution in the context of agrarian
57
Ibid. at 638.
5S
Stote of Kerala v G.R. Silk Μβ. (Wvg) Co. AIR 1973 SC 2734.
59
Ibid. at 2746-7.
 AGRARIAN REFORMS 589

reform legislation shows that the court has, from Kameshwar

Singh to Waman Rao, done its best to protect it. The court, by
upholding the validity of the First Amendment in Shankari
Prasad, assured the validity of the agrarian reform programme.
Even so, in appeals coming from various states, the Constitution
bench under the leadership of Patanjali Sastri, Mehrchand Mahajan,
Bijan Kumar Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das, Gajendragadkar,
HidayatuUah and Krishna Iyer, appreciated the need and urgency
of the measures. Even Subba Rao, CJ, in Golak Nath in his
anxiety to protect the agrarian reform measures, resorted to the
doctrine of overruling. The court in Kesavananda Bharati upheld
the validity of articles 31 A, 3 IB, 31C and the Ninth Schedule to
protect agrarian reforms. The court has continued to further
strengthen this approach in the years since Kesavananda Bharati.