Unconstitutional repeal clause ineffective when the later agrarian law was void ab initio, leaving the earlier tenancy law in force.

A post-Constitution law enacted in breach of Article 13(2) is void ab initio, non est, and incapable of producing legal effect, so its repeal clause cannot validly extinguish an earlier statute. Applying that principle, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, having been struck down as unconstitutional in its application to the relevant Malabar ryotwari lands, could not operate to repeal the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. The repeal provision in Section 95(1) was therefore ineffective, and the Malabar Tenancy Act continued to operate in the Malabar area for ryotwari lands. The contention that the repeal had failed was accepted, though the specific reliefs sought were not granted in the final order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the striking down of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 as unconstitutional rendered the repealing provision in that Act ineffective so that the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 continued to remain in force.

Analysis: The Court held that a post-Constitution law enacted in contravention of Article 13(2) of the Constitution is a nullity from its inception, void ab initio, non est, and incapable of producing any legal effect. On that principle, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, having been struck down as unconstitutional in its application to the relevant Malabar ryotwari lands, could not validly operate to repeal the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. The repeal provision in Section 95(1) of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 therefore did not take effect, and the Malabar Tenancy Act continued to operate in the Malabar area for ryotwari lands.

Conclusion: The contention that the repeal had failed was accepted, and the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 was held to remain in force in the Malabar area. The writ petition was nevertheless dismissed in the final order because the specific reliefs sought were not granted.

---