JAGANNATH ETC. ETC. versus AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS & ORS. ETC.

JAGANNATH ETC. ETC. versus AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS & ORS. ETC.

Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule retrospectively cured any defects in the Madras Land Reforms Act, including unconstitutionality due to infringement of fundamental rights. Additionally, the State Legislature possessed the requisite competence under Entry 18 of List II and Entry 42 of List III to enact the Act.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Jagannath etc. etc.; Respondent: Authorised Officer, Land Reforms & Ors. etc.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Reforms, Legislative Competence, Constitutional Amendments, Ceiling on Land Holdings, Application of Article 31 B and Ninth Schedule, Acquisition and Distribution of Surplus Land
Constitutional Law Property Law Land Reforms Legislative Competence Constitutional Amendments Ceiling on Land Holdings Application of Article 31 B and Ninth Schedule Acquisition and Distribution of Surplus Land

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagannath etc. etc.

Appellant

Authorised Officer, Land Reforms & Ors. etc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule cure the defect in the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.
  2. 2 Whether the Act was incompetent for want of legislative power in the State Legislature.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule retrospectively cured any defects in the Madras Land Reforms Act, including unconstitutionality due to infringement of fundamental rights. Additionally, the State Legislature possessed the requisite competence under Entry 18 of List II and Entry 42 of List III to enact the Act.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Appellants may canvass the application of the Madras Ceilings Act to individual facts before appropriate forum if Madras High Court did not address merits.