1971 JTR(SC) 310
1973 AIR(SC) 2070 ; 1973 AllLJ 407 ; 1971 2 SCC 355 ; 1971 Supp SCR 719 ; 1973 KHC 857
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.N. RAY AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Latafat Ali Khan and others, Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 261 of 1968, D/- 6-5-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Petitioners; Mr. S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
Statutory rules formulated within the powers of a section protected by Article 31-B of the Constitution are also protected from challenge under Articles 14 and 19, especially when they form part of a land reform scheme protected under Article 31-A.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.31(b), Art.14, Art.19
UTTAR PRADESH IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT: S.6
UTTAR PRADESH IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS RULES: R.4(4)
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 31(1), 31-A and 31-B - Ninth Schedule - Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act - Section 6(xvii) and Section 44 - Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Rules - Rule 4(4) - Validity of statutory rules - If a statutory rule is within the powers conferred by a section of a statute protected by Article 31-B, the rule does not require further scrutiny under Articles 14 and 19 - Provisions forming part of a land reform scheme are protected under Article 31-A. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging the vires of a specific clause of a land ceiling act and a corresponding rule made thereunder, alleging violations of fundamental rights. It was contended that the impugned provisions did not relate to land reform and that rules made under an act do not enjoy protection under Article 31-B of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The impugned section and rule are valid as they are part of a land reform scheme and are protected by the constitutional safeguards provided for such legislation.
Issues: Whether the challenged section and rule violate fundamental rights and whether statutory rules enjoy protection under Article 31-B if the enabling section is protected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a statutory rule is within the powers conferred by a section of a statute protected by Article 31-B, the rule is also protected from scrutiny under Articles 14 and 19. Furthermore, provisions that are part of a land reform scheme are protected under Article 31-A.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging the vires of a specific clause of a land ceiling act and a corresponding rule made thereunder, alleging violations of fundamental rights. It was contended that the impugned provisions did not relate to land reform and that rules made under an act do not enjoy protection under Article 31-B of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The impugned section and rule are valid as they are part of a land reform scheme and are protected by the constitutional safeguards provided for such legislation.
Issues: Whether the challenged section and rule violate fundamental rights and whether statutory rules enjoy protection under Article 31-B if the enabling section is protected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a statutory rule is within the powers conferred by a section of a statute protected by Article 31-B, the rule is also protected from scrutiny under Articles 14 and 19. Furthermore, provisions that are part of a land reform scheme are protected under Article 31-A.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Judgment
SIKRI, C.J.I.- This petition under Article 32 has been filed by the three appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 2018-2020 of 1968, in which we have just delivered judgment. In this petition the vires of Section 6, clause (xvii), of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act I of 1961) -hereinafter referred to as the Act- and Rule 4 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 have been challenged. It is urged that these provisions violate Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) and (g) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the State contended that the impugned provisions are protected by Article 31-B of the Constitution, as the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is included in the Ninth Schedule as item 58. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, urged (1) that the impugned provisions have nothing to do with land reform, and (2) that rules made under the Act do not enjoy the protection of Article 31-B. It is admitted that the land in dispute is a holding within Section 3 (d) of the Act. The definition reads :
"Holding" means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Samaj or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sub-lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease."
2. It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers conferred by a section of a statute protected by Article 31-B, it is difficult to say that the rule must further be scrutinised under Articles 14, 19 etc. Rule 4 (4) seems to us to be a rule which does not go beyond the powers conferred under Section 6 (xvii), read with Section 44 of the Act. At any rate, Section 6 (xvii) and Rule 4 (4) are part of a scheme of land reform in U. P. and would be protected from attack under Art. 31A of the Act.
3. In the result we hold that Section 6 (xvii) and Rule 4 (4) are valid. The petition accordingly fails. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1973 SC 2070