Case: Purushothaman Nambudiri vs The State of Kerala
Citation: 1962 AIR 694
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice Gajendragadkar
- Hon’ble Justice P.B., Sarkar
- Hon’ble Justice A.K., Wanchoo
- Hon’ble Justice K.N., Gupta
- Hon’ble Justice K.C. Das
- Hon’ble Justice Ayyangar
- Hon’ble Justice N. Rajagopala
Date of Judgement: 05/12/1961
Petitioner: Purushothaman Nambudiri
Respondent: The State of Kerala
Facts:
- A Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and it seeks to challenge the validity of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960.
- The Petitioner owns 1,250 acres of land in the Kerala State. These lands were situated within the State of Cochin which now forms part of the Kerala State. Out of the lands owned by the Petitioner, nearly 900 acres are classified in the land records maintained by the State as Pandaravaka holdings while the remaining lands are classified as Puravaka holdings.
- The Petitioner claims that the Act is invalid and unconstitutional and prays for an appropriate writ, or direction against the Respondent, restraining from implementing the provisions of the Act.
- A notification has been issued by the Respondent on February 15, 1961, directing the implementation of Act from the date of the notification. The Petitioner claims that the notification issued under the Act is also unconstitutional and illegal as he wants an appropriate writ or order to be issued challenging the said notification.
- The Bill was passed in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on June 10, 1959. It was then reserved by the Governor of the State for the assent of the President under Art. 200 of the Constitution of India.
- Meanwhile, on July 31, 1959, the President issued a proclamation under Article 356 and the Assembly were dissolved. In February 1960 fresh elections took place in Kerala and on July 27, 1960, the President for whose assent the Bill was pending sent it back with his message requesting the Legislative Assembly to reconsider the Bill in the light of the amendments suggested by him.
- On October 15, 1960, the Bill as amended in the light of the President’s recommendations was passed by the Assembly. It then received the assent of the President on January 21, 1961, and became law as the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960.
- The Petitioner took the ground that Bill which was pending before the President for his assent at the time when the Legislative Assembly was dissolved, lapsed in consequence of the said dissolution and so it was not competent to the President to give his assent to a lapsed Bill.
Issues involved:
- Whether the bill which became an act has lapsed before getting the assent of the President and the assent of the President was of no use to turn it into law?
- Whether the properties owned and possessed by the Petitioner are an “Estate” within the meaning of Article 31 A (2) (a)?
Obiter Dicta:
In its Judgement, the Honourable Court mentioned about Article 196 which reads as;
“(1) Subject to the provisions of Articles 198 and 207 with respect to Money Bills and other financial Bills, a Bill may originate in either House of the Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council.
(2) Subject to the provision of articles 197 and 198, a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative Council unless it has been agreed to by both Houses either without amendment or with such amendments only as are agreed to by both Houses.
With the first two clauses of this Article we are not directly concerned in the present petition.”
Rationale:
As per Article 196(3, 4 & 5), a Bill pending in the Legislature of a State shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the House or Houses thereof. A Bill pending in the Legislative Council of a State which has not been passed by the Legislative Assembly shall not lapse on dissolution of the Assembly.
A Bill which is pending the Legislative Assembly of a State, or which having been passed by the Legislative Assembly is pending in the Legislative Council, shall lapse on a dissolution of the Assembly.
The basic concept of the word “Estate” as used in Article 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution is that the person holding the estate should be proprietor of the soil and should be in direct relationship with the State paying land revenue to it except where it is remitted in whole or in part.
Judgement:
It was held that the lands held by the Petitioner on Puravaka tenure satisfied the test as to what constituted an estate under Article 31A (2) (a) of the Constitution and, therefore, the provision of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, were applicable to them.
The holder of Pandaravaka tenure was in the position of a ryotwari pattadar, and, therefore, his lands were not an estate within the meaning of Article 31A (2).
It was further held that the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill wouldn’t be lapsed on dissolution of the assembly as it is clearly mentioned in the Article 196(4) that, a Bill pending in the Legislative Council of a State which has not been passed by the Legislative Assembly shall not lapse on a dissolution of the Assembly.
“In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.”
Conclusion:
The above mentioned case revolves around the validity of Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 as per the Article 196 and the exact meaning of the word ‘Estate’ in Article 31A (2) of the Indian Constitution.
Petitioner, Purushothaman Nambudiri files a petition against The State of Kerala claiming that Kerala Agrarian Relations bill lapsed as it was pending before the President for his assent at the time when the Legislative Assembly was dissolved. But the court dismissed the petition on the basis of Article 196(4) which states that, a Bill pending in the Legislative Council of a State which has not been passed by the Legislative Assembly shall not lapse on dissolution of the Assembly.
Moreover the court held that lands which were classified as Puravaka holdings constituted an estate as the basic concept of the word “Estate” used in Article 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution is that the person holding the estate should be proprietor of the soil and should be in direct relationship with the State paying land revenue to it except where it is remitted in whole or in part.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 16, 2022 at 23:00 IST