Case Analysis
A CASE ANALYSIS OF
K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa
Summary (Case-note)
The appellant firstly contended validity of Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950 claiming it to be colourable legislation as its object was to reduce income of intermediaries in order to pay them less compensation and as it was based upon provisions of Bihar Land Reform Act. Secondly that in relation to Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1947 that improper delegation of legislative power to Provincial Government and provision were against Article 14 of Constitution. Thirdly that building was treated as part of gross assets of estates thereby reducing compensation payable to intermediaries and provisions of Act give no compensation in relation to kudivaram rights.Fourthly that manner of payment of compensation was invalid Supreme Court decided that bill receiving assent of President was protected from ground of non-compliance with provisions of Article 31 (2).Even if deductions stated in Bihar Act were improper it did not make Legislation invalid unless it was unrelated to facts upon which it was based – in relation to Madras Act contention were not relevant as provisions of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952 relating to computation of gross asset on basis of rent payable was not illegal .No objection in relation to inadequacy of compensation on rental basis can be raised in view of provision of Article 31 (4)
Contentions
In the first place, there were contentions raised, attacking the validity of the Act as a whole. In the second place, the validity of the Act was challenged as far as it related to certain specified items of property included in an estate, e.g. private lands, buildings, waste lands, etc.
Thirdly, the challenge was as to the validity of certain provisions in the Act relating to determination of compensation payable to the intermediary, with reference either to the calculation of the gross assets or the deductions to be made therefrom for
K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa
Summary (Case-note)
The appellant firstly contended validity of Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950 claiming it to be colourable legislation as its object was to reduce income of intermediaries in order to pay them less compensation and as it was based upon provisions of Bihar Land Reform Act. Secondly that in relation to Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1947 that improper delegation of legislative power to Provincial Government and provision were against Article 14 of Constitution. Thirdly that building was treated as part of gross assets of estates thereby reducing compensation payable to intermediaries and provisions of Act give no compensation in relation to kudivaram rights.Fourthly that manner of payment of compensation was invalid Supreme Court decided that bill receiving assent of President was protected from ground of non-compliance with provisions of Article 31 (2).Even if deductions stated in Bihar Act were improper it did not make Legislation invalid unless it was unrelated to facts upon which it was based – in relation to Madras Act contention were not relevant as provisions of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952 relating to computation of gross asset on basis of rent payable was not illegal .No objection in relation to inadequacy of compensation on rental basis can be raised in view of provision of Article 31 (4)
Contentions
In the first place, there were contentions raised, attacking the validity of the Act as a whole. In the second place, the validity of the Act was challenged as far as it related to certain specified items of property included in an estate, e.g. private lands, buildings, waste lands, etc.
Thirdly, the challenge was as to the validity of certain provisions in the Act relating to determination of compensation payable to the intermediary, with reference either to the calculation of the gross assets or the deductions to be made therefrom for