One of the every case we heard in constitution is I.C Golaknath V. State of Punjab. Today let’s talk about that amendment which bring challenged by IC Golaknath case after this duration only, I can say it was stated that the amending F.R is not possible. As well as through this amendment Act government made one of an important right that is right to property, which was being completely practicing after the amendment of 17th Amendment Act it limited all the powers of right to property.

Before going to the main amendment let me focus on an important pointer as what were the reasons for establishment of this 17th  Amendment Act. When we talk about the 1st amendment act there is a very important case that came up that was Kameshwar prasad case in Patna High court and to nullify this case parliament has to declare that Art 19(f) is not an absolute right. This was given in the form of amendment and with this amendment only ACT 31A and 9th schedule were being inserted.

Act 13A, speaks about the properties in which government can do acquisition and when or particular it comes to 9th schedule all the law that takes place through the 9th schedule they would be out of supreme court supervision or in simple words courts can’t make their judicial review. This all came up in 1st schedule but the time government started acquiescing this property. During that time there was no proper definition of the estate. so, as there was not proper definition it was problem with the system of parliament and government so because of all the problems that have occurred mere was a new amendment that was brought up that is 17th amendment Act but in better way.

The protection of this article is available only in respect of such tenures as were estate on 26th January, 1950, when the constitution came into force. The expression “estate” has been defined differently in different states and as a result of the transfer of land from one state to another on account of the reorganisation of state, the expression has come to be defined differently in different parts of the same state. Many of the land reform enactment relates to land which are not included in an estate. Several state acts relating to land reform were stuck down on the ground that the provisions of those Acts were violating of article 31A was not available to them. It is , therefore to amend the definition of “estate” in article 31A of the constitution by including therein , lands held under ryotwari settlement and also other lands in respect of which provisions are normally made in land reform enactment. 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: –

  • Any jagir, Iman or muafi or other similar grants and in the states of Madras and Kerala, any janmam right;
  • Any land held under ryotwari settlement;
  • Any land held or let for purpose of agriculture or for purpose ancillary thereto, including wate land, forest land, land for pasture of sites of buildings and other structure occupied by cultivators of land, agriculture labourers and village artisans.

In the 1st amendment Act “estate” was not mentioned or more clear terms definition of estate was not given so it became a problem for judicial specially when case is to go to supreme court because the definition was not there so it used to be problematic. They spoke about the prohibition of the acquisition of the land under personal cultivation unless the market value of the land is paid as compensation. when it comes to market value it would be all decided by the government. There won’t be extra change given if the property is of 1lackh then the person would only receive that much amount only and even in 9th schedule more 44 Act are being added.

The constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act 1964, again circumscribed court in its application to ryotwari lands, as well as by the Kerala High court in relation to lands other than “estates” in the Malabar area on the ground that it transgressed Arts .14, 19, and 31, because the protection of art.31A was not available to the lands in question as those were not ‘estate’. Under Art 31A, as it stood at the time, protection of Art 31A was available only in respect of such tenures as were ‘estate ’on 26th January 1950, when the constitution came into force. The expression ‘estate’ bore different meaning in different states, and sometimes in different parts of the same state. Moreover, many of the land reforms enactment related to lands which were not included in an estate. It thus became necessary to expand the scope of the word ‘estate’ so as to protect all this legislation. Accordingly, the seventeenth Amendment was undertaken. It changed the definition of the word ‘estate’ by bringing within its scope ryotwari lands as well as other lands   as well as other lands in respect of which provisions are normally made in land reform enactment. Therefore, Art 31A(2)(a) was redrafted so as to give it its existing form.

As a counterpoise to expanding the concept of estate, the same amendment also prohibited also the state from acquiring and self -cultivated land within the ceiling fixed by the law until compensation not less than the market-value was provided. the ninth schedule was further expanded by the including therein forty-four-hour state enactment with a view to immunize them from any attack in court of law on the ground to breach of any fundamental right schedule IX thus came to have 64 Acts inscribed therein which could not be challenged under anu fundamental rights. these Acts covered a very wide field, e.g.., on agriculture holdings, abolition od certain types of tenure, acquisition of land belongings to religious and charitable endowments, fixation od rent, protection of tenants from eviction etc.AS has already been stated earlier the constitutional validity of the XVII Amendment was challenged and upheld in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.

Refrence :

ISBN: 978-93-5143-064-3

Aishwarya Says:

If you are a lawyer or a law student who is looking for a job, then you can find details about the latest openings here.

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.


Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: