Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Kunjukutty Sahib Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 26 April, 1972

Sarojini Ammal Represented By Power Of ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 13 November, 1978

12. Though the State has also contended that in any event the impugned measure comes within the protection of Article 31-A based on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.W. Estates v. State of Madras upholding the decision of this Court in Subbacharior v. State of Madras (1967) 1 M.L.J. 206 we are of the view that the later decision in Kunjukutty v. State of Kerala dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 seems to take a slightly different view. But it is not necessary for us to go into that question as we are clearly of the opinion that Article 31-C which was introduced by the Constitution 25th Amendment Act. 1971 with effect from 20th April, 1971 will clearly protect the impugned measure. Article 31-C as amended says that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in part IV 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, Article 19 or Article 31 and that no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. The proviso says that any law made by the State Legislature to have the protection of Article 31-C should have received the assent of the President. As already stated, the impugned Act has received the assent of the President. According to Article 39-C, one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy is to see that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. If for non-payment of arrears of rent, the tenants are to be evicted from the lands and the lands revert to the landlords, it will result in the concentration of the lands which are the means of production with the landlords and this will lead to the loss of production in agricultural produce which will be to the common detriment.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.P.Moutheeswaran vs The District Collector on 13 September, 2019

the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shown is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user of land, by some possible future owner or possessor, for an agricultural purpose. It is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of “assets”, but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth tax. One of the objects of the exemption seemed to be to encourage cultivation or actual utilisation of land for agricultural purposes. If there is neither anything in its condition, nor anything in evidence to indicate the intention of its owners or possessors, so as to connect it with an agricultural purpose, the land could not be “agricultural land” for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. Entries in revenue records are, however, good prima facie evidence.' Similarly, in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 364, this Court held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Sarojini Ammal And Ors. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 13 November, 1978

13. Though the State has also contended that in any event the impugned measure comes within the protection of Article 31-A based on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. W. Estate v. State of Madras, , upholding the decision of this court in Subbachariar v. State of Madras, (1967) 1 Mad LJ 206 we are of the view that the later decision in Kunjukutty v. State of Kerala , dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 seems to take a slightly different view. But it is not necessary for us to go into that question as we, are clearly of the opinion that Article 31(c) which was introduced by the Constitution 25th Amendment Act, 1971, with effect from 20-3-1972, will clearly protect the impugned measure. Article 31-C as amended says that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV 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, Article 19 or Article 31 and that no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. The proviso says that any law made by the State Legislature to have the protection of Article 31-C should have received the assent of the President.. As already stated the impugned Act has received the assent of the President. According to Article 39(c) one of the Directive Principles of the State policy is to see that the operation of economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. If for non-payment of arrears of rent the tenants are to be evicted from the lands and the lands revert, to the landlords it will result in the concentration of the lands that are the means of production with the landlords and this will lead to the loss of production in agricultural produce, which will be to the common detriment
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1