NARAYANIBAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

NARAYANIBAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Since a majority of the Court in Golaknath expressly held that, by virtue of Article 31B, Acts in the Ninth Schedule are not open to challenge on the ground that they infringe fundamental rights; and because, even under the doctrine of prospective overruling, amendments made before February 27, 1967 and actions taken pursuant to them are not invalid even if taken after that date, the petitioner cannot challenge action taken under the Maharashtra Act of 1961 on these grounds.

Parties
Petitioner: Narayanibai; Respondents: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 October 1969
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (original Jurisdiction) Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (ceilings on Holdings) Act, Article 31 B, Seventeenth Amendment, Article 32
Constitutional Law Land Law Doctrine of Prospective Overruling Ninth Schedule to the Constitution Fundamental Rights Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (ceilings on Holdings) Act Article 31 B Seventeenth Amendment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narayanibai

Petitioner

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (original Jurisdiction) Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether action taken under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 (included in the Ninth Schedule by the Seventeenth Amendment) can be challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, if such action is after the judgment in Golaknath's case.

Ratio Decidendi

Since a majority of the Court in Golaknath expressly held that, by virtue of Article 31B, Acts in the Ninth Schedule are not open to challenge on the ground that they infringe fundamental rights; and because, even under the doctrine of prospective overruling, amendments made before February 27, 1967 and actions taken pursuant to them are not invalid even if taken after that date, the petitioner cannot challenge action taken under the Maharashtra Act of 1961 on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.