सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 31A

Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law providing for—

(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or

(b) the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property, or

(c) the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations, or

(d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations, or of any voting rights of shareholders thereof, or

(e) the extinguishment or modification of any rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease or licence for the purpose of searching for, or winning, any mineral or mineral oil, or the premature termination or cancellation of any such agreement, lease or licence,

shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by [article 14 or article 19:

Provided that where such law is a law made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent:

Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof.

(2) In this article,—

(a) the expression ''estate'' shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include—

(i) any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, any janmam right;

(ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;

(iii) any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans;

(b) the expression ''rights'', in relation to an estate, shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor, subproprietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder, 1 [raiyat, under-raiyat] or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue.

Why this exists

After Independence, India wanted to abolish the zamindari (landlord) system and redistribute land to farmers. Courts began striking down these land-reform laws for violating property rights (Article 19) and equality (Article 14), especially over compensation issues. Parliament responded with the First Amendment (1951), inserting Article 31A to shield land reform and related economic-restructuring laws from such challenges, prioritizing social and economic justice over strict individual property rights.

How courts read it

In cases like Kameshwar Singh (which prompted the amendment itself) and later State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, and especially in the Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati lines of cases, courts examined whether such immunizing provisions could go so far as to violate the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld Article 31A's core validity but confirmed that even land reform laws remain subject to the basic structure doctrine, meaning Parliament cannot use this shield to destroy essential constitutional principles like judicial review or the rule of law.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Article 31A means the government can take away anyone's property without paying compensation.
    Fact: The second proviso specifically requires market-value compensation for land within the legal ceiling limit that is under personal cultivation.
  • Myth: Article 31A gives Parliament unlimited power to override any fundamental right through land laws.
    Fact: Courts, especially in Kesavananda Bharati, held that such laws still cannot violate the Constitution's 'basic structure,' like judicial review.
  • Myth: This Article only affects rural landlords.
    Fact: It also covers company mergers, mining leases, and management takeovers of businesses, not just agricultural estates.