TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 was struck down by the Calcutta High Court as being arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional and the special leave petition filed against the judgment by the State of West Bengal was dismissed. By the Constitution (Thirty fourth Amendment) Act, the Janmam Act, in its entirety, was inserted in the Ninth Schedule. By the Constitution (Sixty sixth Amendment) Act, the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, in its entirety, was inserted in the Ninth Schedule. These insertions are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals and writ petitions. The contention is that these Acts, inclusive of the portions thereof which had been struck down, could not have been validly inserted in the Ni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), decided on 24th April, 1973, where it was held by the majority that Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy its basic or essential features or its basic structure. The order in Waman Raos case was that all amendments to the Constitution which were made before 24th April, 1973 and by which the Ninth Schedule was amended from time to time by the inclusion of various Acts and Regulations therein, were valid and constitutional. Amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April, 1973 by which the Ninth Schedule was amended from time to time by the inclusion of various Acts and Regulations therein were open to challenge on the ground that they, or any one or more of them are beyond the constituent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional amendments by which additions were made to the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 will be valid only if they do not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Bhagwati, J. delivered a judgment that is common to Waman Rao and Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1981 1 SCR 206). He said that all constitutional amendments made after the decision in Keshavananda Bhartis case would have to be tested by reference to the basic structure doctrine, for Parliament would then have no excuse for saying that it did not know the limitation on its amending powers. He added that in every case where a constitutional amendment includes a statute or statutes in the Ninth Schedule, its constitutional validity would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 5 and sub-section (4) of section 10, no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease for a period exceeding ten years, or otherwise, any urban or urbanisable land with a building (whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act) or a portion only of such building for a period of ten years of such commencement or from the date on which the building is constructed, whichever is later, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. Tulzapurkar, J., Krishna Iyer, J. and A.P. Sen, J. delivered separate judgments. Chandrachud, C.J., on behalf of himself and Bhagwati, J., stated that they would deliver a detailed judgment later; b....