State acquisition law upheld despite procedural defects, compensation objections, and merger-covenant challenges under constitutional protections.

A State enactment was treated as validly passed despite an omission in the published proceedings, because the Speaker's certificate and legislative history showed approval and the defect was only procedural. The Court held that President's assent after gubernatorial reservation made the law effective, no second reservation or assent was required, and challenges based on absence of public purpose, inadequate compensation, fraud on the Constitution, and excessive delegation failed. It further held that any protection issue concerning malguzari villages or merger-covenant properties was answered by Articles 31-B, 362 and 363, and the Act was upheld against all constitutional challenges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned legislation was duly passed by the Legislature and validly became law; (ii) Whether the requirements of Article 31(3) were complied with and whether the challenge based on absence of public purpose, inadequate compensation, fraud on the Constitution, and excessive delegation could succeed; (iii) Whether the acquisition of malguzari villages and properties covered by a merger covenant was protected by Articles 31-A, 31-B, 362 and 363 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned legislation was duly passed by the Legislature and validly became law.

Analysis: The omission in the published proceedings to record the formal putting of the motion or the declaration of the result did not displace the Speaker's contemporaneous certificate that the Bill had been passed. The surrounding legislative history showed that the measure was in fact considered and approved, and the absence of a recorded vote was treated as an irregularity rather than proof that the Bill had not passed. The President's assent followed reservation by the Governor, and the constitutional procedure was not defeated by the form in which the Bill moved through the State organs.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of enactment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirements of Article 31(3) were complied with and whether the challenge based on absence of public purpose, inadequate compensation, fraud on the Constitution, and excessive delegation could succeed.

Analysis: A Bill passed by the State Legislature and reserved by the Governor for the President's consideration becomes effective law when the President assents, and no second reservation or double assent was required. The Act served a public purpose by abolishing intermediaries and bringing tillers into direct relation with the State. The compensation formula, though not equivalent to market value, was not illusory, and the question of adequacy was barred by the constitutional provisions then operating. The contention that the Act was a fraud on the Constitution, or that it unlawfully delegated essential legislative power, was rejected as the statutory scheme left the material policy with the Legislature and left details to rules.

Conclusion: The objections based on Article 31(3), public purpose, compensation, fraud, and delegation failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the acquisition of malguzari villages and properties covered by a merger covenant was protected by Articles 31-A, 31-B, 362 and 363 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Even assuming that some malguzari villages did not fall within the narrower meaning of estate under Article 31-A, the impugned Act was independently validated by Article 31-B because it was included in the Ninth Schedule. The protection afforded by Article 31-B was not merely illustrative of Article 31-A but operated on its own force. As to properties declared private under a merger covenant, Article 362 required due regard to the covenant but did not prohibit acquisition of such properties on payment of compensation, and Article 363 barred judicial interference with disputes of that character.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge based on Articles 31-A, 31-B, 362 and 363 failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Act was upheld against all substantive constitutional challenges, and the petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State law has been validly enacted, reserved for the President and assented to, and is protected by Articles 31-A or 31-B, the Court will not invalidate it on the ground of inadequate compensation, absence of public purpose, or alleged procedural irregularities that amount only to non-prejudicial defects in legislative procedure.

---