Family land ceiling computation and Ninth Schedule protection upheld against constitutional challenge.

A ceiling law that groups agricultural lands of spouses and minor children for ceiling computation was held not to be a colourable device, because it treated the family as a unit only for assessment and did not extinguish separate ownership or legal personality. The challenge under the second proviso to Article 31A(1) therefore failed. The Court further held that placement of the Act in the Ninth Schedule attracted Article 31B, which independently protected the impugned provisions against the constitutional attack. On that basis, the ceiling legislation was sustained in full and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether grouping separately held agricultural lands of spouses and minor children under the ceiling law was a colourable device infringing the second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether Article 31B of the Constitution of India protected the impugned provisions of the ceiling law against that challenge.

Issue (i): Whether grouping separately held agricultural lands of spouses and minor children under the ceiling law was a colourable device infringing the second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The ceiling law treated a family as a unit only for the purpose of determining the ceiling area and did not abolish the separate legal personality or ownership of spouses and minor children. The grouping mechanism merely fixed the holding to be assessed for ceiling purposes and did not impose a constitutionally prohibited acquisition beyond the applicable ceiling limit. Different ceiling consequences for differently situated persons were not barred by the second proviso, and the statutory scheme showed that separate rights continued to exist notwithstanding the computation method.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of colourable exercise of power failed, and the provision was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether Article 31B of the Constitution of India protected the impugned provisions of the ceiling law against that challenge.

Analysis: The Act having been placed in the Ninth Schedule, Article 31B operated as a complete answer to a challenge based on inconsistency with Part III rights. The Court held that the second proviso to Article 31A(1) conferred protection to individuals, but the impugned provisions did not infringe that proviso in any event. Even assuming an infringement, Article 31B was sufficient to repel the attack, and there was no constitutional bar to the statute receiving the combined protection of Articles 31A and 31B.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions were shielded by Article 31B and the constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The ceiling legislation was sustained in full, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A law included in the Ninth Schedule may receive the protection of Article 31B even when challenged on the basis of limits in Article 31A(1), and a statutory scheme that groups family holdings for ceiling computation without destroying separate ownership is not invalid as a colourable device.

---