Let us take another article of Fundamental Rights–article 31 relating to properties. Now in the whole Constitution this is perhaps the most absurd article. Prima facie this article says what is not justiciable upto 26th January 1950 will be justiciable afterwards. Supposing for instance the U. P. Bill now pending or the Bihar Bill now pending before the commencement of this Constitution Act is passed after the Constitution is passed, the provisions of that Act, under this Article will not be justiciable but if that same Bill or most of the clauses of it are incorporated in a Bill before the Legislative Assembly of Orissa, after the commencement of this Constitution and if that is passed, that might be justiciable. I do not understand how what is the not justiciable now can be justiciable afterwards. And then again look at sub-clause (6). Whatever has been passed within 18 months before the commencement of this Constitution will not be justiciable and whatever was passed beyond 18 months will be justiciable. This discriminative provision is quite out of place in a Constitution, particularly on the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. Then again we do not say here what is the definition of ‘property’, what is ‘possession’ and ‘acquisition’ and what is ‘public purpose’. For instance in Orissa our Land Revenue and Land Tenure Committee has come to the conclusion that abolition of zamindari does not involve any taking of possession or acquisition for public purposes. The reason is, every zamindar has two rights–the right to collect rent and the right to cultivate his own private lands. Suppose we leave his private lands to him and take away the right to collect rent, what property is he going to lose for which he will be recompensed ? And suppose we abolish entirely feudalism, we abolish land revenue and instead we raise some tax, what is there to say that there is some property which is being confiscated or expropriated for which there will be compensation? These are anomalies we have chosen to bring in for nothing. It would have been enough if we had only article 31 clause (1) and nothing else. These will bring unnecessary conflicts and I think-I am not blaming anybody–a spirit of undue compromise has been responsible for enacting this article and this gives a clue to the very mind that has been actuating all things in framing this Constitution.
