SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A.P. SEN, JJ.
Union of India, etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Valluri Basavaiah Chouwdhary and others etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1896 of 1976, 265-300, 29-38 and 5 of 1977 and Writ Petn. No. 350 of 1977, D/- 1-5-1979.
For the Advocates General.
1. State of Orissa - in C. A. 1896/76, Mr. R. K. Mehta Adv.
2. State of Rajasthan - Mr. Badridas Sharma Adv.
-held absence of expression like “unless the context otherwise requires” in Art 168 does not alter the position. Expression “Legislature” or “Houses of Legislature” used in Art 252 do not convey that “Legislature” is used in some sense as in Art 168. Term “Legislature” in this context means House or Houses of Legislature as the case may be.
– The primary object of the Act, as the long title and the preamble show, is to provide for imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein, and with a view to brining about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the directive principles — See decision in Union of India v. Bhim Singhji, AIR 1979 SC 1415 = 1979(3) SCC 324 = 1979(3) SCR 802.
-held, Parliament can legislate on any matter in State list for whole or any part of India under Article 250 (1) when proclamation of emergency is in operation. Such law will cease to have force after six months from revocation of proclamation of emergecy, by virtue of Clause (2) of this Article, except things already done or omitted to be done before that period.
-held, the Act was not passed under Article 252.
-held, ‘Legislature” in its given context means House or Houses of Legislature as the case may be.
-held, resolution entitles Parliament to legislate on the subject matter of resolution though normally it is not competent without the resolution. At the same time legislature upon passing of the resolution ceases to have power to be legislate on the subject.
-held absence of expression like ‘unless the context otherwise requires” in Art.168 does not alter the position. Expression “Legislature” or “Houses of Legislature” used in Art. 252 do not convey that “Legislature” is used in some sense as in Art. 168. Term “Legislature” in this context means House or Houses of Legislature, as the case may be
Judgment
SEN, J.:- These appeals, by certificate, are directed against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated December 3, 1976 allowing a batch of thirty seven writ petitions. The appeals raise an important question namely, whether the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires the Parliament so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. A subsidiary question is also involved as to whether even assuming the Act is in force in the State, it is not applicable to Varangal because there was no master plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 244 (1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956.
2. A further question arises in a connected writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, whether the inclusion of the State of Rajasthan in Schedule I to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the categorisation of the Urban agglomerations of the cities and towns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category C and Ajmer, Kota and Bikaner in category D therein, is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and, therefore, the Act is liable to be struck down to that extent.
3. The State Legislatures of eleven States, namely, all the Houses of the Legislature of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal considered it desirable to have a uniform legislation enacted by Parliament for the imposition of a ceiling on urban property for the country as a whole and in compliance with clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution passed a resolution to that effect. One merit of such Central legislation is that property owned by families anywhere in India can be aggregated for valuation purposes, and the basis of acquisition and compensation can be uniform all over the country.
4. The Parliament accordingly enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In the first instance, the Act came into force on the date of its introduction in the Lok Sabha, i.e., January 28, 1976 and covered the Union Territories and the eleven States which had already passed the requisite resolution under Art. 252 (1) of the Constitution, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, the Act was adopted, after passing resolutions under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution by the State Legislature of Assam on March 25, 1976, and those of Bihar on April 1, 1976, and those of Bihar on April 1, 1976. Madhya Pradesh on September 9, 1976. Manipur on March 12, 1976. Meghalaya on April 7, 1976 and Rajasthan on March 9, 1976. Thus, the Act is in force in seventeen States, and all the Union territories in the country.
5. Schedule 1 to the Act lists out all States, irrespective of whether or not they have passed a resolution under Articles 252 (1) authorising the Parliament to enact a law imposing a ceiling on urban immovable property, and the urban agglomerations in them having a population of two lacs or more. The ceiling limit of vacant land of metropolitan areas of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras having a population exceeding ten lacs falling under category A is 500 sq. mtrs.; urban agglomerations with a population of ten lacs and above, excluding the four metropolitan areas falling under category B is 1000 sq. mtrs.; urban agglomerations with a population between three lacs and ten lacs falling under category C is 1500 sq. mtrs., and urban agglomerations with a population between two lacs and three lacs falling under category D is 2000 sq. mtrs. The schedule does not mention the urban agglomerations having a population of one lac and above; but if a particular State which passed a resolution under Article 252 (1), or if a State which subsequently adopts the Act, wants to extend the Act to such areas, it could do so by a notification under Section 2 (n) (B) or Section 2 (n) (A) (ii), as the case may be, after obtaining the previous approval of the Central Gove
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga
followed : R.M.D.C. (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. State of Mysore
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.