PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 353
of this article, I think have to be judged in the light of one question, and it is this. Is there anything revolutionary in this article ?
Shri Frank Anthony: It is reactionary.
Dr. Ambedkar: Is there anything in this article which is not to be found in article 31 ? It is from this point of view that I want the House to consider this question. The House would remember that later clauses of article 31 provided that certain laws which were then on the anvil and had not been passed, shall not be questioned on the ground of compensation if a certificate was issued by the President. That is the gist of those clauses of article 31. The new amendment to article 31 not only removes the operation of the provision relating to compensation, but also removes the operation of the article relating to discrimination. In this amendment, I am emphasising the word ‘estate’. The new article is a very limited one. It does not apply to the acquisition of land. It applies to the acquisition of estate in land which is a very different thing. What is an estate has been defined in this particular article namely, the right of a proprietor, subproprietor, tenure-holder, or other intermediary. Of course, the terminology is different in different provinces. It does not refer to the acquisition of land. That is a point to be borne in mind. Therefore, all that article 31 A does is this. When any law is undertaken with regard to the acquisition of property, two questions can properly arise. One is the amount of compensation ; the second is discrimination as between the various proprietors as regards the amount of compensation. These are the only two questions that can possibly arise and give rise to litigation. With regard to one part of it, dealing with compensation, we have already excluded the acquisition of proprietory and zamindari interests by the original article
- By this article, we are excluding the operation of the discriminatory provision. That is all what we are doing by this article.
It seems to me that we really cannot adopt the said two articles of the Fundamental Rights relating to compensation and discrimination with regard to this land question. I have