Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (4.04 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

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

Ratna Bai vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2003

(Underlining for emphasize) But, the Bench declared Section 45A, 50A, (2), 73, 85(1) and Section 127(A) unconstitutional for want of protection under Section 31A as these provisions are not relating to agrarian reforms. The Supreme Court upheld the above view of the Full Bench in Kunjukutty Sahib and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (AIR 1972 SC 2097). The above Judgments would show that the court did not consider kudikidappu rights in Municipal areas as those cases came up before the court at that time were of kudikidappu rights with regard to rural areas and constitutionality of these provisions in Municipal areas was not considered in the above decision.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 9 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Anchal Bhusan Bose And Ors. vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 14 May, 1976

51. Banerjee, J., also struck down Section 14-P of the West Bengal Act XII of 1972 following the decision in Kunjkutty v. State of Kerala, . Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 made provisions for surrender of' excess land. It provided that any land held in excess of the ceiling area between specified dates is to be regarded as land still held by the raiyat for purposes of ceiling, even if the raiyat had made any transfer of land during the period. At the same time, the Kerala Act provided that the rights of the transferees would not be affected. It was held that this provision hit the second proviso to Article, 31-A(1). The reason was that while the transfers of land for purposes of ceiling are ignored and the transferees' rights are protected, there would be deprivation of land without payment of market value if the raiyat acquired further land at considerably higher rate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maddukuri Venkatarao And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 11 April, 1975

153. Support is sought for this submission from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunjukutty v. State of Kerala, . In that case explanation to Section 85 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was challenged as offending the second proviso to Article 31 (a) (i). Under the explanation subject to certain exceptions any land transferred by a person holding in excess of the ceiling area between certain dates, was to be regarded as held by the person for the purpose of fixine the extent of the land to be surrendered by him and such surrender was to be out of the land still held by him. The High Court of Kerala struck down the said provision as offending the second proviso to Article 31-A (1). The learned Judges held:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 125 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next