Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (6.53 seconds)
Documents citing Kunjukutty Sahib Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 26 April, 1972

Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2019

“129. Further, the Court in Kesavananda case not only held that Article 31­B is not controlled by Article 31­A but also specifically upheld the Twenty­ninth Constitution Amendment whereby certain Kerala Land Reform Acts were included in the Ninth Schedule after 25 those Acts had been struck down by the Supreme Court in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala, (1972) 2 SCC 364. The only logical basis for upholding the Twenty­ninth Amendment is that the Court was of the opinion that the mechanism of Article 31­B, by itself, is valid, though each time Parliament in exercise of its constituent power added a law in the Ninth Schedule, such exercise would have to be tested on the touchstone of the basic structure test. [See Shelat & Grover, JJ., paras 607 & 608(7); Hegde & Mukherjea, JJ., paras 738­43, 744(8); Ray, J., paras 1055­60, 1064; Jaganmohan Reddy, J., para 1212(4); Palekar, J., para 1333(3); Khanna, J., paras 1522, 1536, 1537(xv); Mathew, J., para 1782; Beg, J., paras 1857(6); Dwivedi, J., para 1994, 1995(4) and Chandrachud, J., paras 2136­41 and 2142(10).]
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 290 - A Mishra - Full Document

Sasanka Sekhar Maity & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 1980

(2) In Kunjukutty's case the Court disposed of a contention similar to that raised before us. It was urged that when the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, by s. 82 reduced the ceiling limit and required surrender of the land held in excess of the limit fixed by the Amendment Act, without payment of compensation at market value, it violated the constitutional inhibition contained in the second proviso to Art. 31A(1). In repelling the contention, it was observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 24 - A P Sen - Full Document

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

619. The argument that the Nation cannot grow and that the objectives set out in the Preamble cannot be achieved unless the amending power has the ambit and the width of the power of a Constitutent Assembly itself or the People themselves appears to be based on grounds which do not have a solid bask The Constitution makers provided for development of the country in all the fields social, economic and political. The structure of the Constitution has been erected on the concept of an egalitarian society. But the Constitution makers did not desire that it should be a society where the citizen will not enjoy the various freedoms and such rights as are the basic elements of those freedoms, e.g., the right to equality, freedom of religion etc., so that his dignity as an individual may be maintained. It has been strongly urged on behalf of the respondents that a citizen cannot have any dignity if he is economically or socially backward. No one can dispute such a statement but the whole scheme underlying the Constitution is to bring about economic and social changes without taking away the dignity of the individual. Indeed, the same has been placed on such a high pedestal that to ensure the freedoms etc. their infringement has been made justiciable by the highest court in the land. The dictum of Das C.J. in Kerala Education Bill case paints the true picture in which there must be harmony between Parts III and IV; indeed the picture will get distorted and blurred if any vital provision out of them is cut out or denuded of its identity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 573 - Cited by 999 - Full Document

K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2011

In Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala & Another (1972) 2 SCC 364, this Court held that any provision for promotion of agriculture or agricultural population is an agrarian reform, which term is wider than land reforms. In Mahant Sankarshan Ramanuja Das Goswami etc., etc. v. State of Orissa & Another (1962) 3 SCR 250, this Court held that a law for the acquisition of an estate etc. does not lose the protection of 61 Article 31A(1) merely because ancillary provisions are included in such law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 156 - Cited by 232 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Itc Limited vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. . on 19 March, 2018

“We agree that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on 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.” (emphasis supplied) Similarly, in the case of Kunjukutty Saheb v. State of Kerala 43, this Court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 123 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1