1972 (4) TMI 105 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and its Amendment Act, 1969.
2. Ceiling limits on land holdings.
3. Exemption of certain plantations from the Act.
4. Classification of lands as estates under Article 31A.
5. Discrimination against certain types of plantations.
6. Acquisition of lands contiguous to rubber plantations.
7. Inclusion of non-agricultural lands under the Act.
8. Settlement of kudikidappukars and tenants of kudiyiruppus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and its Amendment Act, 1969
The petitioners challenged the vires of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, which aimed to prevent the State from acquiring lands in possession of the petitioners in excess of the ceilings imposed. The Act of 1964 was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, thereby receiving protection under Article 31B. However, this immunity did not extend to the Amending Act of 1969.

2. Ceiling Limits on Land Holdings
The petitioners argued that the ceilings fixed by the Act were arbitrary. The Amending Act of 1969 reduced the ceiling limits significantly, which the petitioners contended was violative of the second proviso to Article 31A(1). The Court held that the reduction did not attract the operation of the second proviso to Article 31A(1).

3. Exemption of Certain Plantations from the Act
The original Act exempted plantations of tea, coffee, rubber, and cardamom but did not extend similar exemptions to cashew, areca, and pepper plantations. This was previously held to be violative of Article 14 in Karimbil Kunhikoman's case. The Court found that the exclusion of these plantations from exemption did not constitute discrimination under Article 14 if the lands were estates under Article 31A(2)(a).

4. Classification of Lands as Estates under Article 31A
The Court noted that it was difficult to conclude whether the lands held by the petitioners constituted estates within the meaning of Article 31A(2). The petitioners failed to provide sufficient material to show that their lands were not estates, thus falling under the purview of the Act.

5. Discrimination Against Certain Types of Plantations
The petitioners argued that the exclusion of cashew, pepper, and areca plantations from exemption was discriminatory. The Court held that the Act was not discriminatory with regard to cashew and cocoanut gardens. However, the provisions withdrawing protection to pepper and areca plantations could not be challenged under Article 14 if the lands were estates.

6. Acquisition of Lands Contiguous to Rubber Plantations
The petitioners contended that lands set apart for the expansion of rubber plantations could not be acquired as it would contravene the Rubber Act of 1947. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Rubber Act did not give the Union Legislature power to direct rubber manufacturers to increase their production by bringing additional land under rubber plants.

7. Inclusion of Non-Agricultural Lands Under the Act
The Court found that lands interspersed between sites of commercial undertakings and house sites in municipalities with surrounding lands were not agricultural lands and thus could not be acquired under the Act. The Act's provisions for acquiring such lands were not upheld as they did not constitute agrarian reform.

8. Settlement of Kudikidappukars and Tenants of Kudiyiruppus
The Act provided for the settlement of kudikidappukars and tenants of kudiyiruppus. The Court held that the settlement of these individuals on small holdings was covered by agrarian reform or purposes ancillary thereto. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding the settlement provisions were dismissed as the rights conferred on kudikidappukars were part of a comprehensive law of agrarian reforms.

Conclusion:
1. The petitioners failed to establish that their lands were not estates, thus falling under the Act.
2. The reduction of the ceiling limit by the Amending Act of 1969 does not attract the second proviso to Article 31A(1).
3. The withdrawal of protection to pepper and areca plantations cannot be challenged under Article 14 if the lands were estates.
4. The Act is not discriminatory with regard to cashew and cocoanut gardens.
5. The withdrawal of exemption from lands contiguous to rubber plantations by the Amending Act of 1969 cannot be challenged.
6. Forest lands and jungles are exempt from the operation of the Act as indicated, while private forests are specially exempted.
7. Dairy farms, if part of estates, are not exempt.
8. Lands planted with eucalyptus or teak are agricultural lands and are not exempt.
9. The provision for settlement of tenants of kudiyiruppus or kudikidippukars in small holdings is covered by agrarian reform.
10. Lands interspersed between sites of commercial undertakings and house sites in municipalities with surrounding lands are not agricultural lands and cannot be acquired under the Act.

The provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are largely upheld, except for the discriminatory provisions against pepper and areca plantations if the lands are not estates and the acquisition of non-agricultural lands in municipalities.