TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Kerala Act IV of 1961 Ruled Unconstitutional, Malabar Tenancy Act 1929 Still Valid for Ryotwari Lands</h1> <h3>Lakshmi and Ors. Versus Narayana Iyer and Ors.</h3> Lakshmi and Ors. Versus Narayana Iyer and Ors. - TMI The core legal question addressed in this judgment is the effect of the Kerala High Court's decision to strike down the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Kerala Act IV of 1961) as unconstitutional, particularly concerning the repeal of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. This involves interpreting Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits the state from making laws that contravene fundamental rights.The Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, was in force in certain areas of Kerala until it was repealed by Section 95 of Kerala Act IV of 1961. However, the Supreme Court struck down Kerala Act IV of 1961 concerning its application to ryotwari lands in the Malabar area, declaring it unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The key issue is whether the repeal of the Malabar Tenancy Act by a statute that was later declared void ab initio is valid.The legal framework revolves around Article 13 of the Constitution. Article 13(1) deals with pre-Constitution laws, making them void to the extent of inconsistency with fundamental rights. Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making post-Constitution laws that infringe on fundamental rights, declaring such laws void ab initio.The Court's reasoning emphasizes that a statute declared unconstitutional under Article 13(2) is void from its inception, meaning it never had any legal force. This principle is supported by precedents from the Supreme Court, which state that laws violating fundamental rights are null and void from birth and cannot confer any legal rights or obligations.The Court considered arguments from both sides. The petitioners argued that since Kerala Act IV of 1961 was void ab initio, the Malabar Tenancy Act was never repealed and remains in force. The State supported this view. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the repeal was valid despite the Act being struck down, suggesting that the Malabar Tenancy Act could not be revived.The Court concluded that since Kerala Act IV of 1961 was null and void from its inception, it could not have repealed the Malabar Tenancy Act. Therefore, the Malabar Tenancy Act continues to be in force regarding ryotwari lands in the Malabar area.Significant holdings include the principle that a statute void under Article 13(2) is null and void from its inception, rendering any actions taken under it invalid. The Court emphasized that the Malabar Tenancy Act remains operative in the Malabar area, and the State is obligated to constitute appropriate authorities under the Act.The Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioner's request for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal was moot due to the remand order. However, it acknowledged the petitioner's justified grievance regarding the lack of a functioning Rent Court and expected the State to take appropriate steps to implement the decision. The proceedings would be subject to the provisions of subsequent legislation, namely the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
