Wanchoo, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions which were heard along with Purushothaman Nambudiri vs. State of Kerala (W. P. No.105 of 1961)* raise the constitutionality of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act. No. IV of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners come from that part of the State of Kerala which was formerly in the South Canara district of the State of Madras and came to the State of Kerala by the States Re-organisation Act of 1956. Their lands are situate in Hosdrug and Kasargod Taluks which have now been made part of the Cannanore District in the State of Kerala. They hold large areas of lands, the major part of which is held by them as ryotwari pattadars, according to the ryotwari settlement in the State of Madras under the Board's Standing Orders of that State. In these lands they have areca and pepper plantations besides rubber plantations. They also grow other crops on some of the lands. The Act is being attacked on the ground that it contravenes Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Besides this, it is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Bill which became the Act lapsed under the provisions of the Constitution and therefore the assent given to the Bill by the President was of no effect and did not result in the Bill becoming an Act. We do not think it necessary to set out the details of the attack on this last score in the present petitions as the matter has been considered in full in the judgment in the connected Writ Petition. No. 105 of 1961 (SC). The petitioners further submit that their lands which they hold as ryotwari pattadars are not estates within the meaning of Art. 31A (2) (a) of the Constitution and therefore the Act so far as it affects them is not protected under Art. 31A, and it is open to them to assail it as violative of the rights conferred on them by Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. They have attacked the Act on a number of grounds as ultra vires the Constitution in view of the provisions of Arts. 14, 19 and 31. We do not however think it necessary to detail all the attacks on the constitutionality of the Act for present purposes. It is enough to say that the main attack on the constitutionality of the Act has been made on the following six grounds:- (1) The Bill which became the Act had lapsed before it was assented to by the President and therefore the assent of the President to a lapsed bill was of no avail to turn it into law. (2) The Act is a piece of colourable legislation as it has made certain deductions from the compensation payable to landholders under Chap. II and to others who held excess land under Chap. III and this amounts to acquisition of money by the State which it is not competent to do under the power conferred on it in Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (3) The properties of the petitioners who are ryotwari pattadars are not estates within the meaning of Art. 31A of the Consititution and therefore the Act is not protected under that Article so far as it applies to lands of ryotwari pattadars like the petitioners. (4) The Act exempts plantation of tea, coffee, rubber and cardamom from certain provisions thereof, but no such exemption has been granted to plantations of areca and pepper, and this is clearly discriminatory and is violative of Art. 14. (5) The manner in which ceiling is fixed under the Act results in discrimination and is therefore violative of Art. 14, (6) The compensation which is payable under Chapters II and III of the Act has been reduced by progressive cuts as the amount of compensation increases and this amounts to discrimination between persons similarly situate and is therefore violative of Art. 14.
(2.) The petitions have been opposed on behalf of the State and its contention is, firstly, that the Bill did not lapse and the President's assent was rightly given to it and it rightly became law ; secondly, that the petitioners' lands are estates within the meaning of Art. 31A (2) (a) and the Act is therefore protected under that Article; thirdly that the Act is not a piece of colourable legislation and the State Legislature was competent to enact the Act under item 18 of List II and item 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule and there is no acquisition of money by the State under the Act and reference is made to s. 80 of the Act in this connection; and lastly, that the discrimination alleged with respect to plantations, the fixation of ceiling and the deductions from compensation payable under Chapters II and III is really no discrimination at all and the provisions in that behalf are based on an intelligible differentia which is in accordance with the object and purpose of the Act. Re. (1).
(3.) The question whether the Bill which finally received the assent of the President on January 21, 1961, had lapsed because the legislative assembly which originally passed it was dissolved and a new legislative assembly which came into being after the general elections reconsidered and re-passed it under Art. 201 of the Constitution has been considered by us in Writ petition No. 105 of 1961 (SC), judgment in which has just been delivered and it has been held there that the bill did not lapse and therefore it validly became law when the President assented to it. The attack on the Act therefore on this ground must fail. Re. (2).;