Case: State Of Orissa Vs. Chandra Sekhar Singh Bhoi Etc

The Orissa Land Reforms Act 16 of 1960 (hereinafter called the principal Act) received the assent of the President on October 17, 1960. By S. 1(3) of the principal Act it was provided that the Act shall come into force in whole or in part, on such or date or dates as the Government may from time to time by notification appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act. By a notification issued on September 25, 1968 certain provisions of the principal Act other than those contained in Chs. III -and IV were brought into force. By a notification dated December 9, .1965 Ch. III (ss. 24 to 37 dealing with resumption for personal cultivation of any land held by a tenant and related matters) was brought into force. But Ch. IV (ss. 38 to 52 dealing with ceiling of holdings of land and disposal of excess land) was not brought into operation. The Legislature of the State of Orissa amended the principal Act by Act 13 of 1965. By Act 13 of 1965 amendments were made in the principal Acts: the expressions "ceiling area" and "privileged raiyat" were defined by clauses (5) &24 of S. 24 and the expression "classes, of land" was defined in S. 2(5- a). The original Chs. III and IV-of the principal Act were deleted and were substituted by fresh provisions. Nothing need be said about the amendments made in Ch. III because in these groups of appeals the validity of these provisions is not in issue.

Court's reasoning:
By the amendment made in the Constitution by the 17th Amendment Act the principal Act is incorporated in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution with effect from june 20, 1964. The Act is therefore not liable to be attacked on the plea that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III Constitution. But the power to repeal or amend the Act incorporated in the Ninth Schedule is not thereby taken away. the enactment of the the of the competent Legislature to amending Act passed after the (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 does not therefore qualify for the protection of Art.are unable to accept this process of reasoning. The right to compensation which is not less than the market value under any law providing for the acquisition by the State of any land in an estate in the personal cultivation of a person is -guaranteed by the second Proviso only where the land is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force. A law cannot be said to be in force unless it is brought into operation by legislative enactment, or by the exercise of authority by a delegate empowered to bring it into operation. The theory of a statue being "in operation in a constitutional sense" though it is not in fact in operation has, in our judgment, no validity.Again Ch. IV of the principal Act was repealed by the Amending Act 15 of 1965. Article 31-A proviso 2 guarantees to a person, for compulsory acquisition of his land, the right to compensation which is not less than the market value, when the land is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under a law for the time being in force. On the plain words of the proviso the law prescribing the ceiling limit must be in force at the date of acquisition. In the present case the law relating to the ceiling limit viz.Ch. IV of the principal Act was never made operative by a notification, and was repealed by Act 15 of 1965. The ceiling limit under S. 47 of the principal Act was on that account inapplicable to the landholders who challenged the validity of S. 45 of the amendingargument that provisions of the Act which by a notification could have been but were not brought into force, must still be deemed to be law in force, derives no support from the case relied1(3) of Act 16 of 1960 is undoubtedly a law in force, but until the power is exercised by the State Government to issue an appropriate notification, the provisions of Ch. IV could not be deemed to be law in force, and since no notification was issued before Ch. IV of the principal Act was repealed, there was no ceiling limit applicable to the landholders under any law for the time being in force which attracted the application of the second proviso to Art. 31-A.