New Delhi, July 20: A major land reform law introduced by the Left Front, the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, today came under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.

Acting on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law under which thika land gets vested in the state, the court asked the state government to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.

A division bench of Justices Ashok Bhan and S.H. Kapadia also asked the parties, a group of landowners and tenants, to file their replies to the affidavit within another four weeks. Hearing has been posted after eight weeks.

The dispute arises from the fact that the state, through the law, has assumed the position of the owner of thika lands.

The law defines a thika tenant as a person who occupies a piece of land for residential, manufacturing or business purposes. His successors automatically qualify as tenants.

The petitioners have prayed that the apex court declare the law null and void and ultra vires of the Constitution for affecting the fundamental rights.

They have sought another order not to give effect to the provisions of the law.

The petitioners have particularly targeted Sections 2(6), 2(7) and 2(14) of the act, which classify different sets of lands, owners and thika tenants.

Under Section 2(6), even a well constructed on land comes under the purview of the act; under Section 2(7), plots under a corporation or a charitable or religious institution, too, can become thika land.

Section 2(14) defines a thika tenant as a person “who occupies, whether under a written lease or otherwise, land under another person and is liable to pay rent at a monthly or any other periodical rate for that land”.

The petitioners argue this clause takes away their right over property they own. The act gives retrospective effect to all thika tenancy cases and empowers the state to collect rent from tenants.

The state government has envisaged a compensation package in the act to take over the land. The landlords oppose this and do not want any interference from the state. The case reopens an important question: is the right to property a fundamental right?

Indira Gandhi, as Prime Minister, during the Emergency had declared that right to property was not a fundamental right.

The Supreme Court had then said that fundamental rights become “suspended rights” in an Emergency situation. In some other decisions, it has held that “right to property is not an absolute right” and would be subject to state regulations.