Latafat Ali Khan & Ors Vs. The
State of U. P  INSC 148 (6 May 1971)
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER,
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION: 1973 AIR 2070 1971 SCC (2) 355
D 1978 SC1296 (19,46,47) RF 1992 SC1033 (60)
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act (U.P. 1 of 1961), s. 6(xvii) and r. 4(4) of the Rules made there under- If
protected by Arts. 31A and 31B.
Section 6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and rule 4(4) of the rules made there under
are protected by Arts. 31A and 31B of the Constitution. [720C-D] (a)They are
part of a scheme of land reform in U.P. and would therefore be protected from
attack under Art. 31A.
[720D] (b)The rule does not go beyond the
powers conferred by the section read with s. 44 of the Act, and the Act is
included to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. If a statutory rule is
within the power conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 31B the
rule cannot further be scrutinised under Arts. 14, 19 and 31. [720C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 261
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
S. C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the petitioner.
S. C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana, for the
respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C. J.--This
petition under Art. 32 has been filed by the three appellants in Civil Appeals
No. 2018-2020 of 1968, in which we have just delivered judgment. In this
petition the vires of s. 6, cl. (xvii), of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act 1 of 1961)- hereinafter referred to as the
Act-and rule 4(4) of the U.
P. Imposition of Ceilings and Land Holdings
Rules, 1961, have been challenged. It is urged that these provisions violate
Art. 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 Art. 31B
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 Art. 318. It is admitted that the land 720 in
dispute is a 'holding' within S. 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 ant 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 sublessee of a Government
lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of
the lease." It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers
conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 31B, it is difficult to
say that the rule must further be scrutinised under-Arts. 14, 19, etc. Rule
4(4) seems to us to be a rule which does not go beyond the powers conferred
under s. 6(xvii), read with S. 44 of the Act. At any rate, S. 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 Constitution.
In the result we hold that s. 6(xvii) and
rule 4(4) are valid The petition accordingly fails. In the circumstances there
will be no order as to costs.
V. P. S. Petition dismissed..