LAND LAWS ASSIGNMENT - 1

CASE LAWS

Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Keshavnanda Bharati v. Union of India

Land Laws Assignment: Case

study
Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1950 SC 27)
Brief facts- The Bihar state legislature passed the Bihar Reforms Act, 1950.
The Bihar government issued a notification vesting in the state the estate
owned by zamindars. The principles laid down that whose net annual income
did not exceed Rs. 500 will get twenty times of the net income as
compensation. Higher the net income, lower the rate of compensation. In
such a case when the net income exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, the compensation
would be at the rate of three times the net income and not more. The
compensation was to be calculated and paid in terms of a graduated income.
Maharaja Dhiraja Kameshwar Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Patna questioning the constitutional validity of this Act. The petitioner
challenged the validity of this formula as violative of Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution.
Decision- Accordingly the court declared the Bihar Reforms Act, 1950 as
unconstitutional for being violative of article 14. The honourable court
further held this piece of legislation contrary to principles of the said article
as it classified zamindars for the purpose of payments and compensation in a
discriminatory manner.
Resultant amendments- To over-ride this decision, the First Constitutional
Amendment was made in 1951 which inserted Articles 31A and 31B and the
ninth schedule to the constitution. It provided that no law relating to agrarian
reforms should be challenged on the basis that it contravenes Article 14 and
19 of the constitution. It was also held that any law passed by the competent
legislature, if included in the Ninth Schedule, cannot be called into question
in any court of law.

Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (AIR 1951
SC 458)
Brief facts- the political party in power during that period had carried out
certain agrarian reforms in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar by enacting
legislation which may be compendiously known as The Zamindari Abolition
Acts, by the virtue of the first constitutional amendment in 1951. The
aggrieved zamindars challenged the validity of The Constitutional (First
Amendment) Act, 1951 on the ground that as per the provisions in Article
13(2) a ;aw amending the constitution cannot take away or abridge any
fundamental right(s). it was also argued that the word Law as given in
Article 13(2) amendments to the constitution.
Decision- the court decided that fundamental rights are within the rteach of
the amending process and upheld the validity of the first amendment. It
further held that the word Law as given in Article 13(2) refers to the laws
made by the legislature and does not include Constitution Acts, which are
enacted by a special procedure, mentioned in the constitution.

Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 845)

Brief facts- After the case of Karimbil Kunhikohman vs. The State of Kerala,
The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 was passed that
included in the definition of estate any land held under ryotwari settlement
and in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu janman rights. The validity of the
Seventeenth Amendment along with the First and Fourth Amendments was
questioned in this case. It was contended that Seventeenth Amendment Act
was invalid as it was not ratified by at least half of the states as required
under the proviso to Article 368 of the constitution.
Decision- the contentions were rejected and the Apex Court again approved
its earlier decision on Shankari Prasad case and upheld that that the
provisions of the Fundamental rights come within the purview of the power of
the Constitutional Amendment under Article 368.

Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643)

Brief facts- A person named Henry Golaknath died leaving behind enormous
property in the state of Punjab. The additional commission declared 418
acres of land left behind enormous property in the state of Punjab. The
additional commissioner declared 418 acres of land left behind by Golaknath
as additional land under the provisions of Security of Land Tenures Act. This
decision was challenged by Golaknaths heirs on the ground that this
decision violated Article 19(1) and Article14. The validity of the first, fourth
and seventeenth amendment was also questioned.
Decision- It was held that t Article 368 merely lays down the procedure of
amendment and the Amendments made under Article 368are covered within
the meaning of the word law mentioned in Article 368. The court also overruled its earlier decisions made in the Shankari Prasad case and the Sajjan
Singh case.

Keshavnanda Bharti vs. Union of India (AIR 1973 SC 1461)

Brief facts- One Keshavnanda Bharti, the head of Edvar Math of Kerala
questioned the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969 and argued that
the said Act violates the provisions of Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1) and 31. The
questions involved were
1. Whether the provisions of the Fundamental Rights can be amended
under the ambit of Article 368 or not.
2. What are the powers of the Parliament with respect to the amendment
of this constitution.
Decision- the court reversed the decision made in the Golaknath case and
upheld the validity of the Twenty fifth Amendment. It further observed that -

1. The Fundamental Rights can be amended under Article 368.

2. The Parliament has the power to amend any provision, including
Fundamental Rights of the constitution and to abrogate the same.
3. Article 368 does not give the Parliament the power to change the basic
structure of the constitution.