- Under the First Amendment, Article 31A and 31 B and the ninth schedule to the Constitution

were added which prohibited the scope of acquisition of Estates, corporations, other such
properties which were being challenged that the infringed article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
The first amendment was challenged by the landlords in the case of Shankari Prasad Deo and
others Vs. Union of India in which they said that Article 13 (2) stated that the state cannot make
any such laws which may take away their fundamental rights and if such laws in acted then it
would be void. The main contention of this case was that right to property mentioned various
legislations in the ninth schedule that were immune for being challenged in the courts.
- 4nd Amendment : under this amendment variety of issues pertaining to property laws that
included the states right to compulsorily acquire or requisition of property and also the adequacy
of compensation that was given when the property was acquired under Article 31 (2) were
resolved.
- 17th Amendment : under this amendment the Supreme Court judgement in Shankari Prasad Deo
Vs. union of India case was upheld and two new judgements Sajan Singh Vs State of
Rajasthan and Golak Nath Vs State of Punjab which restricted the power of the Parliament to
amend the constitution and now they could not by virtue of such amendments take away or
abridge the rights guaranteed under part three of the Constitution.. The scope of article 31A and
the ninth schedule was seen to be extended by adding the word “estate” which now included jagir
or inan, maufi and other birth rights in state of Karla and madras and also Ryotwari lands. It also
added 44 more new acts to the with schedule.
- 25th Amendment : the RC Cooper versus union of India case also known as the bank
nationalisation case happened and first the word “compensation” from article 31(2) was replaced
with the word “amount”. Second the supreme court held that in the case that the power of
acquisition or requisition mentioned/ enshrined by article 31(2) was subject to the right to acquire
, hold or dispose off the property under Article 19(1)(f) in which in turn was subject to 19(5) to
reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public. This was held nullified by the supreme
court under the Nationalisation of bank case. Also Article 31C was added which was a
substantive challenge against acquisition of property in order to give effect to Article 39(b) and
(c) was impossible.
Yash Kumar
25210303816