• No results found

land law

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "land law"

Copied!
26
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

INTRODUCTION: INTRODUCTION:

For UPSC, Land Revenue Systems in British India is alays a hot to!i" #or Prelims and For UPSC, Land Revenue Systems in British India is alays a hot to!i" #or Prelims and $ains% &nd as !er the ne sylla'us (land re#orms in India) is s!e"i#i"ally mentioned #or *S $ains% &nd as !er the ne sylla'us (land re#orms in India) is s!e"i#i"ally mentioned #or *S $ains, and the relevan"e +ust ot multi!lied% No let)s have a -ui". loo. at the di##erent $ains, and the relevan"e +ust ot multi!lied% No let)s have a -ui". loo. at the di##erent methods o# land revenue "olle"tion systems hi"h e/isted in India%Ta/ #rom the land as a methods o# land revenue "olle"tion systems hi"h e/isted in India%Ta/ #rom the land as a ma+or sour"e o# revenue #or the .ins and em!erors #rom an"ient times% But the onershi! ma+or sour"e o# revenue #or the .ins and em!erors #rom an"ient times% But the onershi!  !attern o# land had itnessed "hanes over "enturies

 !attern o# land had itnessed "hanes over "enturies% Durin 0inshi!, land as divided into% Durin 0inshi!, land as divided into 1airs, 1airs ere allotted to 1airdars, these 1airdars s!lit the land they ot and allo"ated to 1airs, 1airs ere allotted to 1airdars, these 1airdars s!lit the land they ot and allo"ated to su'2ordinate 3amindars% 3amindars made !easants "ultivate the land, in2return "olle"ted !art su'2ordinate 3amindars% 3amindars made !easants "ultivate the land, in2return "olle"ted !art o# their revenue as ta/%Three ma+or systems o# land revenue "olle"tion e/isted in India% They o# their revenue as ta/%Three ma+or systems o# land revenue "olle"tion e/isted in India% They ere 4 3aminidari, Ryotari and $ahalari%

ere 4 3aminidari, Ryotari and $ahalari%

Object of the research: Object of the research:

The main o'+e"tive o# the study is to #ind hether Ninth s"hedule o# the "onstitution should The main o'+e"tive o# the study is to #ind hether Ninth s"hedule o# the "onstitution should  'e 'rouht under the +udi"ial revie i# t violates the #undamental rihts%

 'e 'rouht under the +udi"ial revie i# t violates the #undamental rihts%

Hypothesis: Hypothesis:

On"e a la is ena"ted and in"luded in the Ninth S"hedule, it ets !rote"tion under &rti"le 562 On"e a la is ena"ted and in"luded in the Ninth S"hedule, it ets !rote"tion under &rti"le 562 B and is not su'+e"t to +udi"ial s"rutiny%

B and is not su'+e"t to +udi"ial s"rutiny%

Limitation: Limitation:

The study made is limited only to the ninth s"hedule o# the "onstitution o# India% The study made is limited only to the ninth s"hedule o# the "onstitution o# India%

(2)

C7&PT8R I C7&PT8R I

Zamindari System Zamindari System

The $uhal 8m!eror ranted the Diani o# Benal and Orissa to the 8ast Indian Com!any% The $uhal 8m!eror ranted the Diani o# Benal and Orissa to the 8ast Indian Com!any% The Diani introdu"ed the 3amindari System in hi"h #armers need to !ay a #i/ed sum in The Diani introdu"ed the 3amindari System in hi"h #armers need to !ay a #i/ed sum in "ash or .ind to the 3amindars% The rate

"ash or .ind to the 3amindars% The rate is at 695rd o# the !rodu"e and is at 695rd o# the !rodu"e and as "olle"ted 'y the ta/as "olle"ted 'y the ta/ "olle"tors o# the British *overnment% The Distri"t Colle"tor #un"tioned as a ta/ "olle"tor% The "olle"tors o# the British *overnment% The Distri"t Colle"tor #un"tioned as a ta/ "olle"tor% The 3amindars used to !ay the *overnment, 96;th o# the "olle"tion%

3amindars used to !ay the *overnment, 96;th o# the "olle"tion%

3amindar system "ontinued as a hereditary riht% British *overnment as ha!!y ith ta/ 3amindar system "ontinued as a hereditary riht% British *overnment as ha!!y ith ta/ "olle"tions and used to im!ose a #ine or even im!risonment i# 3amindars #ailed% This made "olle"tions and used to im!ose a #ine or even im!risonment i# 3amindars #ailed% This made the 3amindars to 'e loyal servants o# the British% Soon they 'e"ame the "olle"tors o# ta/es the 3amindars to 'e loyal servants o# the British% Soon they 'e"ame the "olle"tors o# ta/es im!osed 'y the !rovin"ial *overnment and later had to loo. at the <!u'li" order<%

im!osed 'y the !rovin"ial *overnment and later had to loo. at the <!u'li" order<%

The 3amindars o# Benal soon #ormed a !rovin"ial auto"ra"y and en+oyed s!e"ial !rivilees The 3amindars o# Benal soon #ormed a !rovin"ial auto"ra"y and en+oyed s!e"ial !rivilees and rihts% 3amindars are alays "lose to the !easants and maintained "lose ra!!ort ith the and rihts% 3amindars are alays "lose to the !easants and maintained "lose ra!!ort ith the British administration%

British administration%

By the Plan o# 6==>, ?arren 7astins divided Benal, Bihar and Orissa into distri"ts, ea"h o#  By the Plan o# 6==>, ?arren 7astins divided Benal, Bihar and Orissa into distri"ts, ea"h o#  hi"h is loo.ed a#ter 'y a distri"t "olle"tor ho is em!oered #or revenue "olle"tion and hi"h is loo.ed a#ter 'y a distri"t "olle"tor ho is em!oered #or revenue "olle"tion and adm

adminiinistrastratiotion n o# o# "iv"ivil il and and "rim"riminainal l +us+usti"eti"e% % ReReulaulatintin  &"&"t, t, 6==6==5 5 se!se!aratarated ed revrevenuenuee "olle"tion #rom +udi"iary% Plan o# 6==@ introdu"ed si/ divisions "alled Provin"ial Coun"il, "olle"tion #rom +udi"iary% Plan o# 6==@ introdu"ed si/ divisions "alled Provin"ial Coun"il, ea"h headed 'y Nai', to "olle"t revenue% 7astins is said to have e/!erimented many systems ea"h headed 'y Nai', to "olle"t revenue% 7astins is said to have e/!erimented many systems o# land administration%

o# land administration%

Lord Cornallis "haned the system 'y deleatin the ta/ "olle"tion !oers to the Distri"t Lord Cornallis "haned the system 'y deleatin the ta/ "olle"tion !oers to the Distri"t Colle"tors% The Permanent Settlement o# Land Revenue as introdu"ed in 6=5 that treated Colle"tors% The Permanent Settlement o# Land Revenue as introdu"ed in 6=5 that treated 3amindars as land oners and hen"e they are re-uired to !ay 96;th o# revenue to the 3amindars as land oners and hen"e they are re-uired to !ay 96;th o# revenue to the *overnment% Smaller 3amindars are "onsidered as Talu.dars and !er#ormed as su'2ordinates *overnment% Smaller 3amindars are "onsidered as Talu.dars and !er#ormed as su'2ordinates to the su'2"olle"tors% The ne system o# 3amindars2Talu.dars re"eived mi/ed res!onse% to the su'2"olle"tors% The ne system o# 3amindars2Talu.dars re"eived mi/ed res!onse% Further, there as a hi.e in the ta/ rate% Partition o# +oint #amilies made the land into smaller  Further, there as a hi.e in the ta/ rate% Partition o# +oint #amilies made the land into smaller   !ie"es% &

 !ie"es% & system "alled &'sentee landlordism "ame system "alled &'sentee landlordism "ame in hi"h the landlord has in hi"h the landlord has hue lands thathue lands that are allotted to tillers% The tillers "ould only retain a small !ortion% The de#aultin 3amindars are allotted to tillers% The tillers "ould only retain a small !ortion% The de#aultin 3amindars used to 'e im!risoned% They a"ted as middle men 'eteen the *overnment and the tiller% used to 'e im!risoned% They a"ted as middle men 'eteen the *overnment and the tiller%

(3)

Soon, the tillers redu"ed to 'e"ome ari"ultural la'ourers% The !ersonal lin. 'eteen 3amindars and tillers vanished% Des!ite this de#e"t, the 3amindari system as e/tended to Benaras and Orissa and later to the Northern Sar.ars%

&dministrative Dis"retion and Fundamental Rihts: Bisham'har vs State o# &ssam, &IR  6A@ SC 65: In a "ase related to an &"t alloin the State *overnment to ta.e estate #rom 3amindars, the "ourt held that all estates "ould not 'e ta.en over at on"e oin to #inan"ial di##i"ulties and there#ore, #rom the very nature o# the thins it as ne"essary to ive <"ertain amount o# dis"retionary latitude to the State *overnment<%

Abolition of Zamindari System in Rajasthan

The Pu'li" !oli"y ma.in is an essential #un"tion o# all #orms o# overnment% But this #un"tion a"-uires added sini#i"an"e in demo"ra"y 'e"ause o# the !arti"i!ation o# the !eo!le in eneratin ideas, in#luen"in !u'li" o!inion and involvin !eo!les) re!resentatives in  !oli"y ma.in throuh the medium o# !oliti"al institutions% In demo"ra"y voters have the  !oer to "on#er or deny their su!!ort to a !oliti"al re!resentative9 !arty on !u'li" !oli"y issues% Besides, "itiens oranie themselves into sel#2interest !romotin rou!s 'ased on o""u!ation, in"ome, lanuae, reion, !oliti"al ideoloy, et"% These sel#2interest rou!s try to a"hieve their oals 'y see.in rou! identity% They #orm asso"iations #or a"hievin their  oals, hi"h their mem'ers "annot a"hieve individually, 'y redu"in transa"tion "osts, in"reasin the resour"es at their dis!osal in"ludin their votin strenth% &s a result, #ormulation o# any !u'li" !oli"y 'e"omes a "om!le/ !ro"ess in demo"ra"y% Further, "hane o# any e/istin !oli"y im!oses varyin amounts o# "osts and 'ene#its on di##erent se"tions o#  a so"iety% 7en"e, it 'e"omes very di##i"ult #or any overnment to "hane a ell2entren"hed  !oli"y% In re"ent times there has 'een a reneed interest in relationshi!s 'eteen redistri'ution, roth, and el#are% Land re#orms in develo!in "ountries are o#ten aimed at im!rovin the Poor)s a""ess to land, althouh their e##e"tiveness has o#ten 'een hindered 'y  !oliti"al "onstraints on im!lementation% &mon the more s!e"ta"ular a"hievements o# the

Indian *overnment durin its #irst de"ade o# inde!enden"e ere the e/tensive !rorams o#  land re#orm "arried out almost in every state%

(4)

B. The Zamindari System- Historical Bac!ro"nd

The term <amindar<6 has !assed into the histori"al vo"a'ulary o# medieval India to sini#y the su!erior landed interest% 3amindars durin the $uhal !eriod "ame to denote all rent re"eivers a'ove the a"tual "ultivators% They ere merely !ossessors o# !ro!rietary riht in the "olle"tion o# rent 'ut not in land% The holders o# land on the other hand ere the raiyats E!easants in hose names +ama'andis or rent2rolls ere !re!ared% In this sense amindars ere mere #armers o# revenue 2 intermediaries 'eteen the overnment and the in#erior  revenue #armers, e/"ludin the huuri Einde!endent talu.dars ho !aid revenues straiht to the .halsa Ee/"he-uer and the !easants%

The 'asi" rihts and duties o# amindars remained the same until the introdu"tion o# the  !ermanent settlement E6=5, some "hanes ere o""asionally 'rouht in the stru"ture o# 

land "ontrol system to suit the needs o# the rulin elite% Thus, the Todarmal Settlement E6AG> hi"h had initiated the amindari system in the #ar2#lun Su'ah o# Benal "ontinued till 6HAG hen some vior as !ut into it 'y the revenue settlement o# Su'ahdar Shah Shu+a E6HA=, #olloed 'y Su'ahdar$urshiduli<s mal2amini Eland revenue system in 6=>>% To a"hieve the oal o# ma/imiation o# !u'li" revenue and its !un"tual remittan"e, $urshiduli divided the !rovin"e into 65 "ha.lahs Eadministrative divisions instead o# the !revious 5@ sar.ars and !la"ed the smaller amindars under the +urisdi"tion o# "ha.lahdars ho ere none other  than the larer amindars% Cha.lahdars, installed as steards over their +uniors ere o##i"ials, not oners, to ensure an e##i"ient "olle"tion o# revenues% But the !oli"y o# ma.in the  !rin"i!al amindars immediately res!onsi'le to the .halsa #or the im!erial share o# the

revenue added to their traditional !oer and !osition% In addition, various overnment assinments o##ered to the !romisin amindars !rovided ider s"o!e to enhan"e their  standin in the "ourt and #urtheran"e o# their on "ause% The !ro"ess o# "hane #rom revenue2manaers to landlords as "om!lete 'y the middle o# the 6Gth "entury%

#"!hal $ra

In the $uhal 8ra, the 3amindari system as 'eun to ensure !ro!er "olle"tion o# ta/es durin a !eriod hen the !oer and in#luen"e o# the $uhal em!erors as in de"line% ?ith the $uhal "on-uest o# Benal, JamindarJ 'e"ame a eneri" title em'ra"in !eo!le ith di##erent .inds o# landholdins, rihts and res!onsi'ilities ranin #rom the autonomous or  semi2inde!endent "hie#tains to the !easant2!ro!rietors% &ll "ateories o# amindars under the

(5)

$uhals ere re-uired to !er#orm "ertain !oli"e, +udi"ial and military duties% 3amindars under the $uhals ere, in #a"t, more the !u'li" #un"tionaries than revenue "olle"tin aents% &lthouh amindaris ere alloed to 'e held hereditarily, the holders ere not "onsidered to  'e the !ro!rietors o# their estates%

The territorial amindars had +udi"ial !oers% Naturally, +ude2maistra"y, as an element o#  state authority "on#erred status ith attendant !oer, hi"h really made them the lords o#  their domains% They held reular "ourts, "alled amindari adalat% The "ourts #et"hed them not only !oer and status 'ut some in"ome as ell 'y ay o# #ines, !resents and !er-uisites% The  !etty amindars also had some share in the dis!ensation o# "ivil and "riminal +usti"e% The

Chodhurys, ho ere amindars in most "ases, had authority to deal ith the "om!laints o#  de'ts, the#ts and !etty -uarrels and to im!ose !altry #ines%

 British$ra

3amindar as the name o# landlords in "olonial India% The 3amindari system as a ay o#  "olle"tin ta/es #rom !easants% The amindar as "onsidered a lord, and ould "olle"t all ta/es on his lands and then hand over the "olle"ted ta/es to the British authorities E.ee!in a  !ortion #or him% The similarities to medieval #eudalism are evident%

Under the British, they resem'led landed entry Ealthouh they lived similarly !rivileed lives under the $uhals and sometimes styled themselves as little .ins, or ra+as% Some ne 3amindars ere old Ra+as% $any des"ended #rom eihteenth "entury revenue s!e"ulators and military adventurers% Several #amilies are o# very an"ient lineae, li.e those "laimin *u++ar  an"estry and had alays 'een inde!endent rulers at earlier !eriods o# Indian history% They #re-uently intermarried ith the rulin #amilies o# the !rin"ely states% Their tenants num'ered #rom doens to many thousands, and under im!erial la, had to !ay rent to 3amindars to retain rihts to their land% By the 3amindari system all the !u'li" lands ere 'rouht under  the 3amindar<s "ontrol%

(6)

%HA&T$R-''

After partition in 'ndia

The 3amindari system as mostly a'olished in India soon a#ter its inde!enden"e% The term is usually asso"iated ith the aristo"ra"y as amindars are still "onsidered to 'e o# the landed entry% 3amindars tend to marry into #amilies o# the same so"ial "lassK hoever, there have  'een "ases o# im!overished no'les marryin into ri"h #amilies ith no titles Ethis is sometimes "onsidered marryin into the same so"ial "lass, even i# the other #amily is not o#  the no'ility%

The &re-independence &romises and the Zamindari Abolition Le!islation

The British rule in India introdu"ed !ermanent land revenue system hi"h, over time,  'e"ame idely .non as amindari system% Under this system o# land settlement, those ho areed to !ay a #i/ed sum o# land revenue reularly to the British overnment ere made the oners o# demar"ated lands% They, in turn, "olle"ted hatever land revenue they anted #rom the a"tual tillers ho ere their tenants% There as also a !ra"ti"e o# su'2lettin, hi"h involved middle2level landlords in 'eteen the amindars and the tenants% The amindari system "reated one o# the orst e/!loitative land relations in India and strenthened the #eudal so"io2e"onomi" system% 3amindars 'e"ame staun"h su!!orters o# British rule in India% This annoyed the Conress !arty, hi"h as mo'ilisin the Indian masses aainst British rule% So the Conress !arty de"lared in one o# its annual sessions that a#ter inde!enden"e it ould su!!ort a'olition o# the amindari system% In !ursuan"e o# this resolution, the Conress &rarian Re#orms Committee as a!!ointed under the "hairmanshi! o# 1%C% 0umara!!a, hi"h re"ommended a ide rane o# re#orms in 6@% &#ter inde!enden"e the Conress overnment, under the leadershi! o# 1aaharlal Nehru, a'olished the amindari system% But sin"e the Constitution had uaranteed the riht to !ro!erty under &rti"le 6, the amindars a!!roa"hed the Su!reme Court, hi"h ruled that the !oli"y o# a'olition o# the amindari system violated the riht to !ro!erty and as hen"e ultra vires o# the Constitution% The Conress overnment amended the Constitution to limit the s"o!e o# the riht to  !ro!erty% Thus, a ma+or institutional 9stru"tural as a"hieved 'y a'olishin the amindari

(7)

system o# land relations% This !oli"y hel!ed the #armin "ommunity in eneral and tenants o#  the amindars in !arti"ular% No'ody shed tears over the demise o# the amindari system in India%

There as a hole ra#t o# measures, 'ut im!ortantly the tenant ould et se"urity o# tenure #or any #ield he had tilled #or a "ertain num'er o# years Eusually telve and his rihts ould  'e more se"ure% It as ho!ed that a system, hi"h had meant that a !oer#ul minority held most o# the !oer over most o# the villae land, as to 'e "haned in #avour o# the ma+ority ho or.ed the land 'ut had little !oer over it%

The leislation as delayed 'y "hallenes in the "ourts 'ut as eventually ena"ted% 7oever, it #ailed to ma.e any sini#i"ant im!rovement in the lives o# the !oorer #armers in the initial  !eriod o# the ena"tment%

The history 'oo.s re"ord many #a"tors that lead to the #ailure o# land re#orm in the years immediately #olloin the 3amindari &'olition &"t% The leislation as limited, "on"entrated on shorin u! the rihts o# tenant #armers and did little to im!rove the lot o#  la'ourers ho had no rihts to land%

The landlords also #ound ays to evade the leislation, 'y movin a tenant around so that he "ould not "lo". u! the re-uired num'er o# years to ain o""u!an"y rihts, or 'y havin the land re"ords #alsi#ied% The Conress Party hi"h had !assed the leislation and hi"h, in the states, also made u! mu"h o# the e/e"utive as s!lit on the issue o# amindari a'olition% $u"h o# the #undin #or the Conress Party "ame #rom the 'i landlords hom Conress "ould not a##ord to alienate and indeed many landlords +oined the !arty%

The !eo!le hose +o' it as to en#or"e the leislation o#ten did not do so 'e"ause it as aainst their on !ersonal interest% &ll these short"omins o# the leislation are #i"tionalied in one or other ay, many in 'oth% The #ailure o# land re#orm does not return the distri'ution o# rihts to land in the villae to the status -uoK instead, the !easants a"tually end u! orse o## a#ter the 3amindari &'olition &"t than they ere 'e#ore it% The di##eren"e does not lie in the "ontent o# the histori"al material on land re#orm that they ma.e use o#, 'e"ause this is o#ten similar, 'ut rather in the ay in hi"h it is mediated in the orld o# the novel%

To "ome u! ith the 'a".dro!, the Conress *overnment "ame u! ith the First &mendment in the year 6A6% The !oer o# +udi"ial revie over these leislations as ta.en aay #rom the "ourts and the #undamental riht to the !ro!erty as ta.en aay% So, that the a!!li"ation

(8)

o# these &"ts ould 'e s!eedy and #laless5 and #urther the First Five ear !lan as 'ein im!lemented ith the o'+e"t o# ararian re#orms and the so"ial se"urity% &#ter that the Fourth &mendment &"t, 6A@ as 'ein !assed ith the o'+e"tive o# limitin the land holdin 'y these 3amindars@%

 The Abolition Le!islation in Rajasthan and its 'mpact

To "o!e u! ith the said re#orms and !oli"ies o# the Central *overnment, the Ra+asthan *overnment "ame u! ith the leislation named Ra+asthan 3amindari and Bisedari &'olition &"t, 6A under Se"% A o# the &"t the 3amindari system as 'ein a'olished #rom the state%

The &"t "ame into #or"e in year 6A, the delay in ena"tment o# the &"t as 'e"ause o# the dominan"e o# the 3amindars and Ra+as in the assem'ly and even a#ter delay the &"t as su""ess#ully im!lemented and the tenan"y as also overned 'y this &"t a!!ro/ ;%6G la.h tenants ere 'ene#ited 'y the &"t till >;;6%

&#ter 3amindari a'olition the system o# dire"t "olle"tion 'y overnment #rom 'humidhars, sirdars and assamis as introdu"ed throuh the aen"y o# the "olle"tion amins hose or. is su!ervised 'y naya'2tahsildars, tahsildars and su' divisional o##i"ers% The ultimate res!onsi'ility #or "olle"tion o# main dues is that o# the "olle"tor% On the eve o# the a'olition o# amindari in the state in 6A, the total demand o# land revenue as Rs 5H,;G,@A>% Commen"in a#ter 6A, #or some !eriod the overnment had also a!!ointed a distri"t "olle"tion o##i"er #or doin this or. e/"lusively 'ut later on he as ithdran %e%#% 6H5% But due to the drouhts and un#avoura'le "onditions #or ari"ultureK the revenue im!osition on all the ari"ultural lands are sus!ended till #urther noti#i"ations%

The !ra"ti"e o# 3amindari is totally a'olished #rom Ra+asthan 'ut there is reat s"o!e #or  im!rovement o# the e/istin land manaement te"hni-ues in the Ra+asthan% Interation o#  "adastral surveys o# various !rovin"es ould 'e a el"ome ste!, 'ut it re-uires "riti"al "onsideration o# the "artora!hi", leal and e"onomi" as!e"ts o# the !ro'lem% Pre!aration and storae o# land re"ords and data should 'e in diital #orm, and it is im!erative that the *ovt% "hal. out a de#inite !oli"y and !roram in this dire"tion

(9)

 C7&PT8R III

()*$R %O)ST'T(T'O) :

The Indian Constitution does not re"onie !ro!erty riht as a #undamental riht% In the year  6==, the @@th amendment eliminated the riht to ac+"ire, hold and dispose of property as a #undamental riht% 7oever, in another !art o# the Constitution, &rti"le 5;; E& as inserted to a##irm that no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la% The result is that the riht to !ro!erty as a #undamental riht is no su'stituted as a statutory riht% The amendment e/!anded the !oer o# the state to a!!ro!riate !ro!erty #or so"ial el#are !ur!oses% In other ords, the amendment 'estoed u!on the Indian so"ialist state a li"en"e to indule in hat Fredri" Bastiat termed leal !lunder% This is one o# the "lassi" e/am!les hen the la has 'een !erverted in order to ma.e !lunder loo. +ust and sa"red to many "ons"ien"es%

The Su!reme Courts a!!roa"h to the riht to !ro!erty "an 'e divided into to !hases:2

• T78 TI$8 TILL T78 RI*7T TO PROP8RT ?&S & FUND&$8NT&L RI*7T

EPR8 6=G

• T78 TI$8 &FT8R T78 CONM8RSION OF RI*7T TO PROP8RT &S &

CONSTITUTION&L RI*7T EPOST 6=G  Pre 1978 the Fundamental Right to Property

The Ninth S"hedule as inserted in the "onstitution 'y the Constitution EFirst &mendment &"t, 6A6 alon ith to ne &rti"les 56 & 56 B so as to ma.e las a"-uirin amindaris un"hallenea'le in the "ourts% Thirteen State &"ts named in this s"hedule ere !ut 'eyond any "hallene in "ourts #or "ontravention o# #undamental rihts% These ste!s ere #elt ne"essary to "arry out land re#orms in a""ordan"e ith the e"onomi" !hiloso!hy o# the state to distri'ute the land amon the land or.ers, a#ter ta.in aay su"h land #rom the land lords%

 By the Fourth &mendment &"t, 6AA, &rt 56 relatin to riht to !ro!erty as amended in several res!e"ts% The !ur!ose o# these amendments related to the !oer o# the state o "om!ulsory a"-uisition and re-uisitionin o# !rivate !ro!erty% The amount o# "om!ensation  !aya'le #or this !ur!ose as made un+usti#ia'le to over"ome the e##e"t o# the Su!reme Court

(10)

 +udement in the de"ision o# State o# ?est Benal v% Bella Baner+ee6% By the "onstitution

ESeventeenth &mendment &"t, 6H@, arti"le 56 & as amended ith res!e"t to meanin o#  e/!ression estate and the Ninth S"hedule as amended 'y in"ludin therein "ertain state ena"tments%

 Durin this !eriod the Su!reme Court as enerally o# the vie that land re#orms need to 'e u!held even i# they did stri"tly "lash aainst the riht to !ro!erty>, thouh the Su!reme Court

as itsel# s.e!ti"al a'out the ay the overnment ent a'out e/er"isin its administrative  !oer in this reard5% The Su!reme Court as insistent that the administrative dis"retion to

a!!ro!riate or in#rine !ro!erty rihts should 'e in a""ordan"e ith la and "annot 'e 'y mere #a"t% The "ourt hoever really "lashed ith the so"ialist e/e"utive durin the !eriod o#  nationaliation, hen the "ourt admira'ly stood u! #or the riht to !ro!erty in hoever a limited manner aainst the over rea"hes o# the so"ialist state

In this +un"ture the "ourt in this Ban )ationalisation case has "learly !ointed out the #olloin to !oints:

a% The "onstitution uarantees the riht to "om!ensation hi"h is e-uivalent in money to the value o# the !ro!erty has 'een "om!ulsorily a"-uired% This is the 'asi" uarantee% The la must there#ore !rovide "om!ensation and #or determinin "om!ensation relevant !rin"i!les must 'e s!e"i#ied: i# the !rin"i!les are not relevant the ultimate value determined is not "om!ensation%

 '% The "onstitution uarantees that the e/!ro!riate oner must 'e iven the value o# his  !ro!erty Ethe reasona'le "om!ensation #or the loss o# the !ro!erty% That reasona'le "om!ensation must not 'e illusionary and not rea"hed 'y the a!!li"ation o# an underta.in as a unit a#ter aardin "om!ensation #or some items hi"h o to ma.e u! the underta.in and omittin im!ortant items amounts to ado!tin an irrelevant !rin"i!le in the determination o#  the value o# the underta.in and does not #urnish "om!ensation to the e/!ro!riated oner%

1AIR 1954 SC 170.

2VasanlalMaganbhaiSanjanwala v. Stat !" #$%ba&' AIR 1961 SC 4

(11)

The out'urst aainst the Riht to Pro!erty as a Fundamental Riht in &rti"les 6 E6 E# and 56 started immediately a#ter the en#or"ement o# the Constitution in 6A;% Land re#orms, amindari a'olition las, dis!utes relatin to "om!ensation, several rounds o# "onstitutional amendments, litiations and ad+udi"ations ultimately "ulminated #irst in the insertion o# the ord so"ialist in the Pream'le 'y the @>nd &mendment in 6== and later in the omission o#  the Riht to Pro!erty as a FR and its rein"arnation as a 'are "onstitutional riht in &rti"le 5;;2& 'y the @@th &mendment in 6=G%

Today, the times have "haned radi"ally% India is no more seen throuh the eyes o# only  !oliti"al leaders ith a so"ialist 'ias% It is India Shinin seen throuh the "or!orate lenses o# 

#inan"ial iants li.e the Tatas, &m'anis and $ahindras, ith an un#athoma'le eal #or  "a!italism, money and mar.ets% There is another anle% There is a s"ram'le 'y industrialists and develo!ers #or land all over the "ountry #or esta'lishment o# S!e"ial 8"onomi" 3ones% Miolent !rotests 'y !oor ari"ulturists have ta.en !la"e to de#end their meaer land2holdins aainst "om!ulsory a"-uisition 'y the State% In !arti"ular, the riots and .illins in Sinur,  Nandiram et"% in a State Eo# ?est Benal ruled 'y "ommunists has turned the heel #ull "ir"le% So"ialism has 'e"ome a 'ad ord and the Riht to Pro!erty has 'e"ome a ne"essity to assure and assuae the #eelins o# the !oor more than those o# the ri"h% Soon a#ter the a'olition o# the Fundamental Riht to !ro!erty, in

Bhim Sinh v% UOI@,

The Su!reme Court realised the orth o# the Riht to Pro!erty as a Fundamental Riht% In the a'sen"e o# this Fundamental Riht to !ro!erty, it too. re"ourse to the other Fundamental Riht o# 8-uality hi"h is a'solutely the "on"e!t o# Reasona'leness under &rti"le 6@ #or  invalidatin "ertain as!e"ts o# the ur'an land "eilin leislation% Today, the need is #elt to restore the riht to !ro!erty as a Fundamental Riht #or !rote"tin at least the elementary and  'asi" !ro!rietary rihts o# the !oor Indian "itiens aainst "om!ulsory land a"-uisition% Mery re"ently, the Su!reme Court, hile disa!!rovin the ae2old Do"trine o# &dverse Possession, as aainst the rihts o# the real oner, o'served that the riht to !ro!erty is no "onsidered to  'e not only a "onstitutional riht or statutory riht 'ut also a human riht% Thus, the trend is unmista.a'le% By >;A;, i# the Constitution o# India is to 'e "redited ith a sense o# sensi'ility and #le/i'ility in .ee!in ith the times, the 'ad ord so"ialist inserted in the Pream'le in

(12)

6== shall stand omitted and the Riht to Pro!erty shall stand resurre"ted to its oriinal  !osition as a Fundamental Riht%

Re"ent &!!roa"h 'y the Su!reme Court

In a very re"ent PIL #iled in the Su!reme Court hi"h as still !endin in the 7on'le Court, it as held that the very !ur!ose #or hi"h the riht to !ro!erty releated to a mere statutory riht in the late 6=;s is not no loner relevant% It as arued 'y 7arish Salve, the learned "ounsel #or the !etitioners that:

The riht to !ro!erty is made a statutory riht in 6=G to a'olish lare land holdins ith amindars and ri"h and their distri'ution amon landless !easantsK

7avin a"hieved the very !ur!ose 'ehind the leislative a"tion in the late 6=;s, the overnment should no initiate #resh measures to !ut riht to !ro!erty 'a". in the #undamental rihts%

(13)

 Cha!ter IM

&OST $SHAA)A)*A) BHART' %AS$ :

8arlier, the a!e/ "ourt in its famo"s esha/anandan Bharti case of 0123 had first termed some 'asi" and unaltera'le !arameters and #eatures o# the Indian state and its "onstitution li.e the "ountry<s demo"rati" #orm o# overnment, as its 'asi" stru"ture, hi"h "ould not 'e "haned at all even 'y "onstitutional amendment% But, in the +udement o# the "ase, 1usti"e 7%R% 0hanna had made a !assin o'servation to the e##e"t that #undamental rihts a""orded to the "itiens< miht not 'e a 'asi" stru"ture o# the Constitution% This had le#t the s"o!e o!en #or "hanin or dilutin the #undamental riht o# the "itiens% Thouh later in 6=A, hile ad+udi"atin another #amous lasuit>H'eteen ersthile Prime $inister Indira *andhi and  !rominent !oliti"al leader o# his times Ra+ Narain, 1usti"e 0hanna had tried to "lari#y that his o'servation had 'een mis"onstrued% Des!ite that "lari#i"ation, the 1anata Party overnment, under the advi"e o# then la minister Shanti Bhushan, had "haned the Constitution, removin the riht to !ro!erty #rom the list o# #undamental rihts%

1udi"iary vs Leislature: The Tussle Beins

The saa o# leislative mani!ulation o# the riht to !ro!erty 'ean ith the First &mendment &"t, 6A6 'y hi"h the &rti"les 562& and 562B ere inserted into the Constitution% &rti"le 562& as introdu"ed 'y the Constitution First &mendment &"t, 6A6 herein the Parliament de#ined 8state and "ontinued 'y #urther amendments to e/tend its meanin so as toʺ ʺ

"om!rehend !ra"ti"ally the entire ari"ultural land in the rural area in"ludin aste lands, #orest lands, lands #or !asture or sites o# 'uildins% Under the said amendment, no la  !rovidin #or a"-uisition 'y the state o# an estate so de#ined or any rihts therein o# the

e/tinuishment or modi#i"ation o# su"h rihts "ould 'e -uestioned on the round that it as in"onsistent ith or too. aay or a'rided any o# the rihts "on#erred 'y &rti"les 6@, 6 or  56% &rti"le 562B and S"hedule Nine introdu"ed 'y the su'se-uent amendments as another  attem!t to usur! +udi"ial !oer% It as an innovation introdu"ed in our Constitution unheard

(14)

o# in any other !art o# demo"rati" orld% The leislature made void las o##endin #undamental rihts and they ere in"luded in S"hedule Nine and later on the list as e/tended #rom time to time% &rti"le 562B de"lared that none o# the a"ts or reulations s!e"i#ied in neither the Ninth S"hedule nor any o# the !rovisions thereo# shall 'e deemed to  'e void on the round that they are in"onsistent ith Part III, notithstandin any +udments, de"ree or order o# any "ourt or tri'unal to the "ontrary% By #urther amendment, the list as e/tended% This amendment dis"loses a "yni"al attitude to the rule o# la and the !hiloso!hy underlyin our Constitution% &uto"rati" !oer as sustained 'y demo"rati" !ro"esses% The amendments in the realm o# !ro!erty su'stituted the Constitutional !hiloso!hy 'y totalitarian ideoloy% This totalitarian ideoloy is arti"ulated 'y the deli'erate use o# amendments to add more and more las to the Ninth S"hedule% Oriinally H@ las ere added to the Ninth S"hedule and more a"ts ere added 'y the @th, 6=th and >th &mendment &"tsK 5@th &mendment added 6= more &"tsK 5th&mendment added 5G &"tsK @>nd &mendment added H@

&"tsK the @=th &mendment added 6@ more &"ts and 'y the end o# this amendment the num'er  o# &"ts in the Ninth S"hedule had risen to >;>K The HHth &mendment added AA &"ts raisin the total to >A=% The =Ath &mendment &"t, 6@ has 'een !assed 'y the !arliament, hi"h in"ludes Tamil Nadu &"t !rovidin #or H !er"ent reservation #or 'a".ard "lasses under the  Ninth S"hedule% This is a "lear misuse o# the Ninth S"hedule #or !oliti"al ains as the o'+e"t o# the Ninth S"hedule o# the Constitution is to !rote"t only land re#orm las #rom 'ein "hallened in "ourt% &#ter the addition o# >= more &"ts to the S"hedule 'y the =Gth &mendment &"t o# 6A the total num'er o# &"ts !rote"ted 'y the S"hedule has risen to >G@% The saa did not end here, the hornets nest had 'een stirred u! already, the state made a "onsistent attem!t 'y the !ro"ess o# amendment to the Constitution to remove the +udi"ial "he". on the e/er"ise o# its !oer in a lare area, and to "lothe itsel# ith ar'itrary !oer in that reard% The history o# the amendments o# &rti"le 56E6 and E> and the addin o# &rti"les 56E& and EB and the Ninth S"hedule reveal the !attern% &rti"le 56 in its #irst to "lauses deals ith the de!rivation o# !ro!erty and a"-uisition o# !ro!erty% The Su!reme Court held in a series o# de"isions vi% State o# ?est Benal v% $rs% Bella Baner+eeA, State o# ?%B v%

Su'odh *o!alH, State o# $adras v% Namasivaya$uralidar =, that &rti"le 56, "lauses E6 and E>

5AIR 1954 SC 170

6 ,1954- SCR 587

(15)

 !rovided #or the do"trine o# eminent domain and under "lause E> a !erson must 'e deemed to  'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty i# he as su'stantially dis!ossessed or his riht to use and en+oy the !ro!erty as seriously im!aired 'y the im!uned la% &""ordin to this inter!retation, the to "lauses o# &rti"le 56 dealt only ith a"-uisition o# !ro!erty in the sense e/!lained 'y the "ourt, and that under &rti"le 56E6 the state "ould not ma.e a la de!rivin a !erson o#  his !ro!erty ithout "om!lyin ith the !rovisions o# &rti"le 56E>% It is orth mentionin in this "onte/t that it as the de"ision in the Bella Baner+ees "ase that a"tually indu"ed the overnment to resort to the Fourth &mendment% In this "ase the &!e/ "ourt throuh this landmar. de"ision had insisted #or !ayment o# "om!ensation in every "ase o# "om!ulsory de!rivation o# !ro!erty 'y the state% It as held that "lause E6 and E> o# &rti"le 56 deal ith the same su'+e"t, that is, de!rivation o# !rivate !ro!erty% Further the "ourt held that the ord "om!ensation meant +ust "om!ensation i%e% +ust e-uivalent o# hat the oner had 'een de!rived o#% It is also orthhile to note here that this amendment also amended &rti"le 5;A and em!oered the state to nationalie any trade% The Parliament instead o# a""e!tin the de"ision, 'y its Fourth &mendment &"t, 6AA amended "lause E> and inserted "lause E>2& to &rti"le 56% The e##e"t o# the amendment is that "lause E> deals ith a"-uisition or re-uisition as de#ined in "lause E>2& and "lause E6 "overs de!rivation o# a !erson s !ro!erty 'y the stateʹ

otherise than 'y a"-uisition or re-uisition% This amendment ena'les the state to de!rive a  !erson o# his !ro!erty in an a!!ro!riate "ase 'y a la% This !la"es an ar'itrary !oer in the hands o# the state to "on#is"ate a "itien s !ro!erty% This is a deviation #rom the ideals o# theʹ

rule o# la envisaed in the Constitution% The amendment to "lause E> o# &rti"le 56 as an attem!t to usur! the +udi"ial !oer% Under amended "lause E>, the !ro!erty o# a "itien "ould  'e a"-uired or re-uisitioned 'y la hi"h !rovides #or "om!ensation #or the !ro!erty so a"-uired or re-uisitioned, and either #i/es the amount o# "om!ensation or s!e"i#ies the  !rin"i!les on hi"h and the manner in hi"h the "om!ensation is to 'e determined% It as #urther !rovided that no su"h la "ould 'e "alled in -uestion in any "ourt on the round that the "om!ensation !rovided 'y that la is not ade-uate% This amendment made the state the #inal ar'iter on the -uestion o# "om!ensation% This amendment "on#erred an ar'itrary !oer  on the state to #i/ at its dis"retion the amount o# "om!ensation #or the !ro!erty a"-uired or  re-uisitioned% The non2+usti#ia'ility o# "om!ensation ena'les the state to #i/ any "om!ensation it "hooses and the result is, 'y a'use o# !oer, "on#is"ation may 'e e##e"ted in the #orm o# a"-uisition%

(16)

 Then "ame the Seventeenth &mendment &"t, 6H@ 'y hi"h the state e/tended the s"o!e o#  &rti"le 562& and Ninth S"hedule to !rote"t "ertain ararian re#orms ena"ted 'y the 0erala and $adras states% The ord estate in &rti"le 562& no in"luded any+air or inam, mau#, or  any other rant and +anmam riht in state o# 0erala, $adras and also Ryotari lands% It also added "onse-uentially, the se"ond !roviso to "lause E6 to !rote"t a !erson o# 'ein de!rived o# land less than the relevant land "eilin limits held 'y him #or !ersonal "ultivation,@ e/"e!t on !ayment o# #ull mar.et value thereo# 'y ay o# "om!ensation% It also added @@ more &"ts to the Ninth S"hedule% The Su!reme Court 'y various +udments "onsidered the said amendments and restri"ted their s"o!e ithin reasona'le "on#ines% The Su!reme Court in 0o""huni vs% State o# $adrasG did not a""e!t the !lea o# the state that &rti"le 56E6 a#ter 

amendments ave an unrestri"ted !oer to the state to de!rive a !erson o# his !ro!erty% It held that &rti"le 56E6 and E> are di##erent #undamental rihts and that the e/!ression laʺ ʺ

in &rti"le 56E6 shall 'e valid la and that it "annot 'e valid la unless it amounts to a reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest ithin the meanin o# &rti"le 6EA% ?hile this de"ision "on"eded to the state the !oer to de!rive a !erson o# his !ro!erty 'y la in an a!!ro!riate "ase, it as made su'+e"t to the "ondition that the said la should o!erate as reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest and 'e +usti"ia'le% The Court "onstrued the amended  !rovision reasona'ly in su"h a ay as to salvae to some e/tent the !hiloso!hy o# the Constitution% This 'e"ame ne"essary as the de#inition o# estate as simultaneously e/!anded to "over Ryotari settlements in order to ma.e ararian re#orms more e##e"tive%

But the Su!reme Court in SrimathiSita'ai Devi v% State o# ?est Benal held that &rti"le

56E> i%e%, the !rovision relatin to the a"-uisition or re-uisition o# land as not su'+e"t to &rti"le 6EA% It ould have 'een loi"al i# the e/!ression la in &rti"le 56E> as ivenʺ ʺ

the same meanin as in &rti"le 56E6% In that event, the la o# a"-uisition or re-uisition should not only "om!ly ith the re-uirements o# &rti"le 56E> and E>2&, 'ut should also satis#y those o# &rti"le 6EA% That is to say, su"h a la should 'e #or a !u'li" !ur!ose,  !rovide #or "om!ensation and also satis#y the dou'le test o# reasona'le restri"tion andʺ ʺ

 !u'li" interest !rovided 'y &rti"le 6EA% The reasona'leness o# su"h a la should 'e tested

ʺ ʺ

#rom su'stantive and !ro"edural stand!oints% There may 'e a !u'li" !ur!ose, 'ut the "om!ensation #i/ed may 'e so illusory that it is unreasona'le% The !ro"edure !res"ri'ed #or  8AIR 1960 SC 1080

(17)

a"-uisition may 'e so ar'itrary and there#ore unreasona'le% There may 'e many other de#e"ts transressin the standard o# reasona'leness, 'oth su'stantial and !ro"edural% But #rom a  !ra"ti"al stand!oint, the !resent di"hotomy 'eteen the to de"isions 0o"hunni and Sitha'athi Devi did not 'rin a'out any a!!re"ia'le hardshi! to the !eo!le, #or a la o#  a"-uisition or re-uisition hi"h stri"tly "om!lies ith the inredients o# "lause E> may ordinarily also 'e reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest% Su'stantive deviations #rom theʺ ʺ

 !rin"i!les o# natural +usti"e may 'e hit 'y &rti"le 6@% Provision #or an illusory "om!ensation may 'e stru". don on the round that it does not "om!ly ith the re-uirement o# &rti"le 56E> itsel#% That is i# the "ourts ma.e it mandatory to 'rin 56E> in "on#ormity ith 56E6% The Su!reme Court in P Ma+ravelu$udalier v% S!e"ial De!uty Colle"tor 6; and also in the

Union o# India v% $etal Cor!oration o# India66 "onsidered &rti"le 56E> in the "onte/t o# 

"om!ensation and held that i# the "om!ensation #i/ed as illusory or the !rin"i!les  !res"ri'ed ere irrelevant to the value o# the !ro!erty at or a'out the time o# a"-uisition, it "ould 'e said that the Leislature had "ommitted a #raud on !oer and there#ore the la as inade-uate. The Su!reme Court in three other de"isions "on#ined the 'ar o# &rti"le 562& only to ararian re#orms% In 0o"hunni "ase the Court held that re-uirement o# &rti"le 562& 'ars and atta". on the round o# in#rinement o# #undamental riht only in the "ase o# ararian re#orms, !ertainin to an estate% In Ran+ith Sinh v% State o# Pun+a',6> it as held that the

e/!ression ararian re#orm as ide enouh to ta.e in "onsolidation o# holdins as it asʺ ʺ

nothin more than a !ro!er !lannin o# rural areas% In Ma+ravelu de"ision the Su!reme Court e/!lained that there is no "on#li"t 'eteen the said to de"isions and !ointed out that the latter de"ision in"ludes in the e/!ression o# ararian re#orms, the slum "learan"e and other   'ene#i"ial utilisation o# va"ant and aste lands% In a *hula'hai v% Union o# India,65 the

Su!reme Court did not a""e!t the "ontention o# the state that the e/!ression 8state ta.es inʺ ʺ

all aste lands, #orest lands, lands #or !astures or sites o# 'uildins in a villae hether they ere "onne"ted ith ari"ulture or not 'ut ruled that the said enumerated lands ould "ome under the said de#inition only i# they ere used #or the !ur!ose o# ari"ulture or #or !ur!oses 10,1965- 1 SCR 614

11 ,1967- 1 SCR 255

12AIR 1965 SC 632

(18)

an"illary thereto% The result o# the 'rie# survey o# the !rovisions o# the Constitution and the "ase la thereon as it stood then may 'e stated in the #orm o# the #olloin !ro!ositions: E6 8very "itien has a #undamental riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# the !ro!erty%

E> The state "an ma.e a la im!osin reasona'le restri"tions on the said riht in !u'li" interest%

E5 The said restri"tions, under "ertain "ir"umstan"es, may amount to de!rivation o# the said riht%

 E@ ?hether a restri"tion im!osed 'y la on a #undamental riht is reasona'le and in !u'li" interest or not, is a +usti"ia'le issue%

EA The state "an 'y la, de!rive a !erson o# his !ro!erty i# the said la o# de!rivation amounts to reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest ithin the meanin o# &rti"le 6EA%

EH The state "an a"-uire or re-uisition the !ro!erty o# a !erson #or a !u'li" !ur!ose a#ter   !ayin "om!ensation%

E= The ade-ua"y o# the "om!ensation is not +usti"ia'le%

EG I# the "om!ensation #i/ed 'y la is illusory or is "ontrary to the !rin"i!les relevant to the #i/ation o# "om!ensation, it ould 'e a #raud on !oer and there#ore the validity o# su"h a la 'e"omes +usti"ia'le%

E Las o# ararian re#orm de!rivin or restri"tin the rihts in an estate the said e/!ressionʺ ʺ

has 'een de#ined to in"lude !ra"ti"ally every ari"ultural land in a villae"annot 'e -uestioned on the round that they have in#rined #undamental rihts%

The *irecti/e &rinciple Of State &olicy

Fi#th, it as not even !ermitted to raise the -uestion hether the !ro!osed la ill result, or  isreasona'ly "al"ulated to result, in se"urin the dire"tive !rin"i!le laid don in &rti"le 5E' and E"% The ron done to the !eo!le ho are de!rived o# their 'asi" #reedoms is orsened  'y !rote"tion to those las, hi"h may not 'e at all "al"ulated to ive e##e"t to the dire"tive  !rin"i!les% The riht to move the Su!reme Court to en#or"e other #undamental rihts is itsel# 

a #undamental riht E&rti"le 5> and is a 'asi" #eature o# the Constitution% This riht is destroyed hen a #undamental riht is made unen#or"ea'le aainst a la !ur!ortin to ive

(19)

e##e"t to the dire"tive !rin"i!les and at the same time the "ourt is !re"luded #rom "onsiderin hether the la is su"h that it "an !ossi'ly se"ure any dire"tive !rin"i!le6@%

4hat is the basic principle of the constit"tion555

Si/th, the 'asi" !rin"i!le o# the Constitution is that no state leislature "an amend the #undamental rihts or any other !art o# the Constitution% This essential #eature is re!udiated  'y 56C, hi"h em!oers even state leislatures to !ass las, hi"h virtually involve a re!eal o# the #undamental rihts% The holly irrational "onse-uen"e is that hereas state leislatures "annot a'ride a sinle #undamental riht, it as no o!en to them to su!ersede a hole series o# su"h rihts% In su'stan"e, the !oer o# amendin or overridin the Constitution is deleated to all state leislatures, hi"h is not !ermissi'le under &rti"le 5HG%

One o# the essential #eatures o# the Constitution is to !rovide #or due !rote"tion to minorities and their "ultural and edu"ational rihts% The #undamental rihts under &rti"le 6@,6 and 56, hi"h ere souht to 'e su!erseded 'y &rti"le 56C are ne"essary to ma.e meanin#ul rihts o# the minorities, hi"h are, uaranteed 'y &rti"les >A to 5;% Under the uise o# ivin e##e"t to the dire"tive !rin"i!les, a num'er o# ste!s may 'e ta.en hi"h may seriously undermine the !osition o# reional linuisti", "ultural and other minorities% The !roviso inserted 'y the >Ath amendment is a very tall tale% It e/!ressly !rovides that here the !ro!erty o# an edu"ational institution esta'lished and administered 'y a minority is a"-uired, the amount #i/ed #or the a"-uisition should 'e su"h as not to restri"t or a'roate the riht uaranteed under 5;E6% The "lear im!li"ation is that hen !ro!erty is a"-uired in any other "ases, an amount "an 'e #i/ed hi"h a'roates or restri"ts any other #undamental rihts, #or instan"e, the riht to #reedom o# s!ee"h and e/!ression &rti"le 6E6Ea, to #orm asso"iations or  unions &rti"le 6E6E", or to !ra"ti"e any !ro#ession or "arry out any o""u!ation, trade or   'usiness &rti"le 6E6E, or the riht o# an reliious "ommunity to esta'lish and maintain institutions #or reliious or "harita'le !ur!oses E&rti"le >H% Further, i# a la violates the rihts o# the minorities under &rti"les >A to 5;, su"h la, 'ein invalid, ould 'e no la at all and there#ore de!rivation o# !ro!erty under su"h a la ould violate &rti"le 56E6 hi"h  !rovides that no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la, i%e% a valid la% But sin"e 56E6 is one o# the arti"les a'roated 'y &rti"le 56C, minorities "an 'e de!rived o# their !ro!erties held !rivately or u!on !u'li" "harita'le or reliious trust, 'y a la hi"h is invalid% In sum, &rti"le 56C is a monstrous outrae on the Constitution% In the 14shvanan+a#ha)athi v. Stat $" /)ala' AIR 1973 SC 1461

(20)

entire history o# li'erty, never ere so many millions o# !eo!le de!rived o# so many #undamental rihts in one see! as 'y the insertion o# &rti"le 56C% De To"-ueville remar.ed that nothin is more arduous than the a!!renti"eshi! o# li'erty% N &Pal.hivala rihtly remar.s ith rie# in this "onte/t that It is a measure o# our immaturity as a demo"ra"y and the utter  a!athy o# our !eo!le that the 'etrayal o# our 'asi" #reedoms e/"ited hardly any !u'li" de'ate%

The Fundamental Rihts Case and its attitude toards the riht to !ro!erty

This de"ision hi"h "haned the entire s"enario o# the Indian Constitution did the three #olloin im!ortant "hanes

6% Throuh &rti"le 56 C too. aay the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# the !ro!erty under &rti"le 6E6 E#

>% Riht to !ro!erty under &rti"le 6E6 E# did not !ertain to the 'asi" stru"ture o# the "onstitution E7on'le 1usti"e% 7%R%0hanna

5% &rti"le 6E6 E# "on#erred "itiens the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o## the  !ro!erty under &rti"le 6E6 E# hi"h #ormed a !art o# rou! o# arti"les under the headin

Riht to Freedom

@% There is no ne"essity #or an ela'orate arument to demonstrate that !ro!erty is intimately "onne"ted ith the Riht to Freedom%

 Article 300-A

Cha!ter IMRiht to Pro!erty, 5;;&% Persons not to 'e de!rived o# !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la%

The @@th amendment a"t hi"h deleted arti"le 6E6 E# and introdu"ed this arti"le 'rouht out

the #olloin im!ortant "hanes:

6% In vie o# the s!e"ial !osition souht to 'e iven to #undamental rihts, the riht to  !ro!erty, hi"h has 'een the o""asion #or more than one &mendment o# the Constitution, ould "ease to 'e a #undamental riht and 'e"ome only a leal riht% Ne"essary amendments #or this !ur!ose are 'ein made to &rti"le 6 and &rti"le 56 is 'ein deleted% It ould hoever 'e ensured that the removal o# !ro!erty #rom the list o# #undamental rihts ould not a##e"t the rihts o# the minorities to esta'lish and administer edu"ational institutions o#  their "hoi"e%

(21)

>% Similarly, the riht o# !ersons holdin land #or !ersonal "ultivation and ithin "eilin limit to re"eive mar.et "om!ensation at the mar.et value ill not 'e a##e"ted%

5% Pro!erty, hile "easin to 'e a #undamental riht, ould, hoever, 'e iven e/!ress re"onition as a leal riht, !rovision 'ein made that no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his  !ro!erty save in a""ordan"e ith la%

 Pro'lems Posed 'y the Removal o# Riht to Pro!erty #rom Fundamental Rihts

The rihts "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E# and &rti"le 56 read ith the undernoted entries@>ere so "losely interoven ith the hole #a'ri" o# our Constitution that those rihts "annot 'e torn out ithout leavin a +aed hole and 'ro.en threads% The hole must 'e mended and the 'ro.en threads must 'e re!la"ed so as to harmonise ith the other !arts o#  the Constitution% The tas. is not easy, and "ourts ill 'e "alled u!on to anser !ro'lems more #ormida'le than those raised 'y the &rti"le 56 a#ter it as amended a num'er o# times% 7oever some o# the !ro'lems hi"h ill arise and the !ro'a'le lines o# solution, are "onsidered 'elo:

 Ei That &rti"les 6E6 E# and 56E> dealt ith a di##erent, 'ut "onne"ted, as!e"ts o# the riht to !ro!erty is "lear #rom several Su!reme Court de"isions hi"h dealt ith the "o relation o#  those to &rti"les%

EiiThe "orre"t vie as that the to &rti"les ere mutually e/"lusive% But one +udement hi"h as soon "orre"ted and another +udement hi"h as a +udement !er in"uriam, to the vie that &rti"les 6E6E# and 56E> ere not mutually e/"lusive% This +udi"ial "on#li"t as resolved 'y >Ath &mendment, hi"h introdu"ed in &rti"le 56 a ne "lause E>2B hi"h  !rovided that Nothin in &rti"le 6E6E# shall e##e"t a ny su"h la as is re#erred in "lause E>% The validity o# this &mendment as unanimously u!held in the 0esavananda "ase% The reason #or this mutual e/"lusiveness as that hen !ro!erty is a"-uired #or a !u'li" !ur!ose on  !ayment o# "om!ensation, the riht o# a "itien to hold !ro!erty is one and the -uestion o# 

his riht to hold !ro!erty su'+e"t to reasona'le restri"tions does not arise%

Eiii Further, &rti"le 6E6E# that "on#erred "itiens the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o#   !ro!erty #ormed !art o# a rou! o# arti"les under the headin Riht to Freedom% It re-uires no

ela'orate arument to demonstrate that !ro!erty is intimately "onne"ted ith the riht to #reedom% &rti"le 56 a!!eared under the headin Riht to Pro!ertyK #or the riht to #reedom "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6 E# ould 'e orth little i# the !ro!erty hen a"-uired "ould 'e

(22)

ta.en aay 'y la% 7en"e &rti"le% 56 !rovided that !rivate !ro!erty "ould 'e a"-uired only #or a !u'li" !ur!ose and on !ayment o# "om!ensation Elater amount% There is nothin in the Statement o# O'+e"ts and Reasons to sho that Parliament no loner loo.s u!on the riht to a"-uire hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty as a !art o# the Riht to Freedom%

EivThe retention o# &rti"le% 6E6Ea to Ee and E is a "lear indi"ation to the "ontrary% That su'2"lauses Ed, Ee and E# o# &rti"le% 6E6E#E6 ere interlin.ed is "lear #rom their   !rovisions as ell as #rom su'2&rti"le EA hi"h overned ea"h o# those su'2"lauses% The

meanin o# &rti"le 6E6 E# has 'een "onsidered and it is 'ein su'mitted that the Su!reme Court "orre"tly held that the riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6Ed as not a riht o# #ree movement sim!li"iter, 'ut a s!e"ial riht to move #reely throuhout the territory o# India ith a vie to se"ure, amon other thins, the unity o# India hi"h a narro !rovin"ialism ould deny%

EvThis riht o# #ree movement as not limited to travellin throuhout India, 'e"ause it as a""om!anied 'y the #urther riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6 Ee to reside and settle in any !art o# India, as also the riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E# to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o#   !ro!erty, in any !art o# India% But a riht to settle in any !art o# India means not only a riht to have a !la"e to live in, 'ut also a !la"e to or. in, #or &rti"le 6E6E "on#erson every "itien the riht to !ra"tise any !ro#ession, or to "arry on any o""u!ation, trade or 'usiness% EviFurther, &rti"le 6E6Ea "on#ers on every "itien the riht to the #reedom o# s!ee"h and e/!ression, hi"h riht in"ludes the #reedom o# the !ressa riht hi"h is 'asi" to demo"ra"y% But a !ress needs a 'uildin or 'uildins to house it, and mova'le !ro!erty to or. it, so that ithout the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty, there "an 'e no #reedom o# the  !ress% &nd the same is 'roadly true o# the #undamental riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E"2the

riht to #orm asso"iations or unions2#or normally the or.in o# asso"iations and unions involves the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty% ?hat then is the e##e"t o# deletin &rti"le 6E6E#, hi"h "on#erred the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty, and o#  deletin &rti"le 56 hi"h !rovided #or the a"-uisition o# !ro!erty #or !u'li" !ur!ose on  !ayment o# "om!ensation

To these -uestions the Statement o# O'+e"ts and Reasons ives no anser2it is dou't#ul hether those ho #ramed the !ro!erty amendments ere even aare o# their e##e"t on other  #undamental rihts retained in &rti"le 6E6E#E6, and on the !oliti"al unity o# India hi"h &rti"le 6E6E#E6Ed, Ee, E# and E as intended, inter alia, to su' serve, alon ith other 

(23)

 !rovisions o# our Constitution% &t any rate, the #ramers on these amendments have !rovided no solutions #or the !ro'lem, hi"h the !ro!erty amendments inevita'ly raise% One #urther  "om!li"ation must 'e noted here% &lthouh &rti"le 6E6E# and &rti"le 56E> had 'een made mutually e/"lusive 'y &rti"le 56E>2B, there as no su"h mutual e/"lusiveness 'eteen &rti"le 56E> and the riht to !ra"tise a !ro#ession or to "arry on any o""u!ation, trade or   'usiness "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E% This riht as su'+e"t to restri"tions mentioned in

&rti"le 6E6E#EH% But trade and 'usiness is "a!a'le o# 'ein a"-uired, as Se"tion >E> o#  the *overnment o# India &"t, 65A, "learly shoed% By hat test is the validity o# the la a"-uirin !ro!erty, and a la a"-uirin trade or 'usiness, in"ludin industrial and "ommer"ial underta.ins, to 'e +uded The >Ath &mendment inserted in &rti"le 56 a ne su' "lause E> ith the #olloin !roviso:

Provided that in ma.in any la #or the "om!ulsory a"-uisition o# any !ro!erty o# an edu"ational institution esta'lished and administered 'y minority, re#erred to in "lause E6 o#  &rti"le 5;, the State shall insure that e amount #i/ed 'y or determined under su"h la #or the a"-uisition o# su"h !ro!erty is su"h as ould not restri"t or a'roate the riht uaranteed under that "lause%

This !roviso re"onised the #a"t that the valua'le riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 5;E6 on minorities to esta'lish edu"ational institutions o# their "hoi"e ould 'e destroyed i# ade-uate "om!ensation as not made #or a"-uisition o# the !ro!erty o# su"h institutions% Politi"al e/!edien"y may re-uire that minorities should not 'e alienated 'y de!rivin them o# their  "herished rihts, es!e"ially hen minorities are as lare as they are in India% S!e"ial rihts are "on#erred on minorities 'e"ause in a demo"rati" "ountry ith adult universal su##rae, ma+orities 'y virtue o# their num'ers "an !rote"t themselves% But it does seem illoi"al and un+ust to leave out ma+ority edu"ational institutions #rom the same !rote"tion, unless it as  'elieved that ma+orities, de!rived o# their !oer to o!!ress minorities, ould not ish to o!!ress themselves% Thus, in State o# 0erala v% $other Provin"ial,6A Counsel #or the state told

the Su!reme Court that he had instru"tions to say that any !rovision held ina!!li"a'le to minority institutions ould not 'e en#or"ed aainst the ma+ority institutions also% &ain, the 6=th &mendment had introdu"ed in &rti"le% 56&E6Ee the #olloin !roviso: Provided #urther  that here any la ma.es any !rovision #or the a"-uisition 'y the State o# any estate and here any land "om!rised therein is held 'y a !erson under his !ersonal "ultivation, it shall

(24)

not 'e la#ul #or the State to a"-uire any !ortion o# su"h land as is ithin the "eilin limit a!!li"a'le to him under any la #or the time 'ein in #or"e or any 'uildin or stru"ture standin thereon or a!!urtenant thereto, unless the la relatin to the a"-uisition o# su"h land, 'uildin or stru"ture, !rovides #or !ayment o# "om!ensation at a rate hi"h shall not 'e less than the mar.et value thereo#% To ta.e aay land under !ersonal "ultivation ithout "om!ensation ould 'e un#air and un+ust and the a'ove !roviso !revented su"h in+usti"e  'ein done% It ould 'e e-ually un#air and un+ust to ta.e aay #rom a !erson #olloin a vo"ation, other than ari"ulture, the tools o# his trade, or the !ro!erty 'y hi"h he earns his livin% These o'servations have 'een made 'e"ause the a'ove !rovisos relatin to !ro!erty, hi"h have 'een retained in the "ha!ter on #undamental rihts, re"onise the in+usti"e o#  "on#is"atory las hi"h im!ine on #undamental rihts% In the a'sen"e o# any rational e/!lanation in the Statement o# O'+e"ts and Reasons #or deletin the riht to !ro!erty #rom the "ateory o# #undamental rihts, the relie# aainst in+usti"e !rovided 'y the @@th &mendment a!!ears to have 'een uided 'y !oliti"al e/!edien"y2lare minorities and tillers o# the soil have votes to ive or ithhold% Or it may 'e that the reason as more "om!le/% The 1anata Party havin redeemed its !lede, it as le#t to the Su!reme Court to determine, in the liht o# the !rovisions o# our Constitution, hether the !lede "an 'e "onstitutionally redeemed, and i# so to hat e/tent% Li.eise there are a lot many as!e"ts and lon term evils iven rise 'y @@th &mendment% In short the a'ove dis"ussion shos that it is easy to ma.e an ele"toral !romise to delete riht to !ro!erty #rom the list o# #undamental rihtsK it is not easy to or. out the "onse-uen"es o# that !romise and em'ody them in a Constitution &mendment Bill% Normally, amendment !ro!osin #ar rea"hin "hanes in the Constitution are su'mitted to a Sele"t Committee #or s"rutiny, and re!ort% I# that "ourse as not #olloed, it is di##i"ult to resist the "on"lusion that the s!onsors o# the !ro!erty amendments realied that those amendments ould not stand the s"rutiny o# a Sele"t Committee ith a !oer to e/amine itnesses% The "ourse o# #irst redeemin an ele"toral !romise 'y amendin the Constitution and then leavin it to the "ourts to or. out the "onse-uen"es o# the amendments, must a!!ear attra"tive% &nd that "ourse as #olloed, in the "on#ident 'elie# that the "ourt ould not shir. their duty o# inter!retin the Constitution even i# Parliament !re#erred silen"e to s!ee"h as to its real intentions%

(25)

%HA&T$R 

S(66$ST'O)S A)* R$%O##$)*AT'O)S

 The Ninth s"hedule saa also hihlihts an im!ortant as!e"t o# the Riht o# Center Politi"al and Intelle"tual $ovement in India% That #or 5@ years there as not a murmur o# !rotest or  leal "hallene tells us that there is no Riht o# Center $ovement in India% es there are some ho "laim to 'e #or re#orms and mar.ets 'ut these are individuals ho see "a!italism as an end in itsel# hile missin the underlyin #undamental !rin"i!le o# Individual Freedom% It is this same mindset that endorses the State)s !ursuit o# industrialiation throuh S83s on the  'asis o# !hony #aith in "a!italism hile loo.in the other ay as the State violates

#undamental rihts and individual #reedom to a"-uire !rivate !ro!erty on 'ehal# o# !rivate enter!rises% This underlyin intelle"tual "ontradi"tion sums u! hy there is no "onstituen"y #or e"onomi" re#orms in the "ountry 4 'e"ause there is no #undamental 'elie# in the !rima"y o# individual #reedom%

%O)%L(S'O):

Besides #e other thins, hat all the *overnment did as very sim!le% Inserted Ninth S"hedule to the Constitution and said (none o# the &"ts and Reulations s!e"i#ied in the  Ninth S"hedule nor any o# the !rovisions thereo# shall 'e deemed to 'e void, or ever to have  'e"ome void, on the round that su"h &"t, Reulation or !rovisions is in"onsistent ith, or 

ta.es aay or a'rides any o# the rihts "on#erred 'y , any !rovisions o# this !art, and notithstandin any +udment , de"ree or order o# any "ourt or tri'unal to the "ontrary, ea"h o# the said &"ts and Reulations shall, su'+e"t to the !oer o# any "om!etent leislature to re!eal or amend it, "ontinue in #or"e’. In other ords las under Ninth S"hedule are 'eyond

the !urvie o# +udi"ial revie even thouh they violate #undamental rihts enshrined under   !art III o# the Constitution%

The 'est !art o# this amendment is that it is retros!e"tive in nature that is hen a statute is de"lared un"onstitutional 'y a "ourt and later it is in"luded in the Ninth S"hedule, it is to 'e "onsidered as havin 'een in that S"hedule #rom its "ommen"ement%

(26)

BIBLIO*R&P7:

• T78 INDI&N

"onstitution , $%P%+ain%

• T78 L&ND L&?S , C7&NDR&S80&R%

?8BSIT8S:

• %indian.annon%or • %landlas%or

References

Related documents

[r]

Nevertheless the research carried out with the fungal plant pathogen Colletotrichum, the structural similarities between the fungal and the oomycete cell wall and especially the

Each group of the factors affecting mobile handset design decisions and feature dissemination can be related to specific actors. For example, demand factors can

In this review, the research carried out using various ion-exchange resin-like adsorbents including modified clays, lignocellulosic biomasses, chitosan and its derivatives, microbial

While in Table 3 we present a pooled specification, to increase the chances for the added variables to exert a significant impact, in unreported regressions we repeat the

university reform claims that strategic manage- ment has been strengthened in the universities, while the role of university per- sonnel has remained weak. Two major strategy

Note 1 to entry: Monitoring can be applied to a risk management framework (2.1.1), risk management process (3.1), risk (1.1) orcontrol (3.8.1.1).

[r]