Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A.P. SEN, JJ.
Nand Lal and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1361, 2785-86, 2935-38 of 1977; 976, 843-44 and 2436-39 of 1978 and S. L. P. Civil Nos. 3498-99, 4270, 4419 of 1977; 6677-78, 5979-5977 etc. of 1978, D/- 9-5-1980.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. N. Phadke, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Nishat Singh, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sothi Advocates with him), for Appellant.
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (2234 of 1977), Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, Mr. Naurang Singh, Advocate (2234 of 1977), for Appellants/Petnrs. in Civil Appeals 2785-86, 2935-38, 2234-35, 2707-10, 2831, 2805-9/77, 120-22, 318-19, 671, 176, 276, 2071-84/78, 177, 2216/78; SLPs. 2491-92/78, 3541-44, 5126-29, 6216-18, 6421, 5308/78 and WP 4377, CA-2893/77.
Mr. K. K. Mohan, Advocate, Mrs. Geetanjali Mohan (1392 of 1978), for Appellants/Petnrs. in CAs. 2823-25, 1525-27, 2022-23/77, 2069-70/78, 1813/78, 2144, 2423-26/77, 1263, 56-67, 1010-14, 1898-1901, 1902-16, 2064-68, 1392, 291, 546-47, 941-45, 946-49, 139, 576, 1789-1803, 1828, 2436-39/78, SLPs. 442, 443, 454, 608, 635, 778, 779, 1819, 1401, 1414, 1573, 1576-79, 1849-50, 2013-14, 2414, 2462, 3102-3, 3225-26, 3359, 3746, 5272, 3319, 3857-58, 3891-96, 4052, 4500-11, 4655-67, 4983A-5002, 5174-84, 5460-72, 5907-24, 5970-74, 6126-33, 6645-49, 6677-78 of 1978; 4270, 4455, 4735, 5205 & 5238 of 1977 and 5030 of 1978.
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (1348), O. P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate (1362-74, 1348), Mr. P. R. Mridul, Sr. Advocate (5625 & 4539), and Mr. H. K. Puri, Advocate, for Appellant in CAs. Nos. 1348, 1362-74 of 1977 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 4539 and 562 of 1978.
Mr. N. C. Sikri, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 2723-24 of 1977 and 2725 of 1977.
Mrs. Lakshmi Arvind, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 976, 1076 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 622, 623, 1715 of 1978 and WP No. 4312.
Mr. S. K. Mehta, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 643-44, 546 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 4815-17, 5008-22, 5024, 5025, 5290-93, 5340-46, 5869-72 of 1978, 4419-20 of 1977.
Mr. S. M. Ashri, Advocate and Mr. S. S. Sharma, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 2043-47, 1831-34 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 4617, 4830, 5454, 5628, 6246-47 of 1978 and 4863 of 1978.
Mr. R. S. Mittal, Advocate and Mr. A. Minocha, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 1674-76, 1554 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 5873 of 1978, 5646-47 of 1978.
Mr. M. B. Lal, Advocate, for Appellants in CA. No. 1079 of 1978. 2099
Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. H. S. Grewal, Advocate (in 208-15 of 1980), for Appellants in C.A. No. 132 of 1978 & Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 63-65, 99, 352, 353, 455/78, 208-14/80, 208-15/80.
Mr. Sarva Mitter, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 1650, 1878-89/78, 1890-95/78 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 4831-34, 4836, 4837, 4864, 76, 4966, 5250-57, 5402-8, 5634-44, 5646-47, 5975-5984, 6158-62, 6449-6453, 6654 of 1978, 5271 of 1978.
Mr. S. K. Sabharwal, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 1876, 1645, 48 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 3519, 4972, 5004-5007, 6120 of 1978, W.P. No. 4507 of 1978.
Mr. S. C. Patel, Advocate, for Appellants in C.A. No. 83 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLP(C)s. Nos. 1842 of 1978, 3521, 4849, 4850-51 of 1978.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. Nos. 992-98 of 1978.
Mr. S. K. Dhingra, Advocate, for Appellants in CA. 2162 of 1978 and Petnrs. in SLPs. 4973-81, 6361-62, 6395, 5413-5415 of 1978.
Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate, for Appellants in CAs. 2233, 2234/78 and Petnrs. in SLPs. 5309-10/78.
Mr. Ramesh Chand, Advocate, for Appellants in C. A. No. 2294 of 1978.
Mr. I. S. Ratta, Advocate, Mr. Vimal Dave and Miss K. Mohta, Advocates, for Petitioners in W.P. No. 1306 of 1977 and SLPs. 3498-99/77.
Mr. R. Bana, Advocate, for Petnrs. in SLPs. Nos. 1303 of 1978, 2370, 3413, 3476, 6002, 1423, 4072 of 1978 and 1312 of 1978.
Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate, for Petitioners in SLPs. 1959 of 1978, 78, 5939-40 of 1978.
Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate (R. N. & Co.), for Petnrs. in SLP. No. 3715 of 1978.
Mr. R. C. Kohli, Advocate, for Petnrs. in SLP. 5049 of 1978.
Mr. S. R. Srivastava, Advocate, for Petnrs. in SLP. No. 5211 of 1978.
Mr. S. K. Bagga, Advocate, for Petnrs. in SLP. No. 5385 of 1978.
Mr. J. D. Jain, Advocate, for Petnrs. in SLPs. 5516-19, 5786-90, 6208, 6656, 6669/78, 4818, 6239-40 of 1978.
Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Addl. Sol. Genl., Mr. B. Datta, Advocate, Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocate, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate (4306), Mr. Anip Sachthey, Advocate (1348 & 1362-74 of 1977), Miss. A. Subhashini, Advocate, for Respondents.
* Writ Petn. No. 4766 of 1976, d/- 17-3-1977 (Punj & Har).
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 39, 31-A, 39 (b) and (c) and 14 - Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Section 2 , 4 (1), 4 (3), 7, 8, 9 and 11 (1) and (2) - Punjab Land Reforms Act - Appeals by special leave - Requisite declaration - Policy - Act (26 of 1972) received assent of President on and was published in Official Gazette on Section 2 contained and even now contains requisite declaration that it was enacted for giving effect to policy of State towards securing principles specified in cls. (b) and (c) of Art 39 of Constitution - Act was included in Ninth Schedule to Constitution and, thereby, it came under the protective umbrella of Art, 31-B of Constitution; in Saroj Kumaris case AIR 1975 Punj & Har 353 a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, being apparently unaware of such inclusion, struck down certain provisions of Act on ground that those provisions violated rights guaranteed by Part III of Constitution - Whether as landowner or tenant or as a mortgagee with possession or partly in own capacity or partly in another, land within State of Haryana exceeding permissible area on or after appointed day – Held, Court are informed, varies in State of Haryana around a paltry amount of Rs. 8 per acre annually; fourthly, deposit to be made or bank guarantee to be furnished is confined to land holdings tax payable in respect of disputed area i.e. area or part thereof which is declared surplus after leaving permissible area to appellant or petitioner - Having regard to those aspects, particularly meagre rate of annual land tax payable, fetter imposed on right of appeal / revision, even in absence of a provision conferring discretion - Court are informed, varies in State of Haryana around a paltry amount of Rs. 8 per acre annually; fourthly, deposit to be made or bank guarantee to be furnished is confined to land holdings tax payable in respect of disputed area i.e. area or part thereof which is declared surplus after leaving permissible area to appellant or petitioner - Having regard to those aspects, particularly meagre rate of annual land tax payable, fetter imposed on right of appeal / revision, even in absence of a provision conferring discretion on appellate / revisional authority to relax or waive the condition, cannot be regarded as onerous or unreasonable - Challenge to S. 18 (7) must fail - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
TULZAPURKAR, J:—These appeals by special leave, directed against the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jaswant Kaurs case, AIR 1977 Punj & Har 221, seek to challenge the vires of some of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) and according to the appellants some of the provisions are pivotal and run through the whole Act and, therefore, the entire Act is liable to be struck down.
2. The Act (26 of 1972) received the assent of the President on 22-12-1972 and was published in the Official Gazette on 23-13-1972. Section 2 contained and even now contains the requisite declaration that it was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in cls. (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution. The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution on 7-9-1974 (vide: Item 72), and, thereby, it came under the protective umbrella of Art, 31-B of the Constitution; however, on 9-9-1974 in Saroj Kumaris case AIR 1975 Punj & Har 353 a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, being apparently unaware of such inclusion, struck down certain provisions of the Act on the ground that those provisions violated the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Division Bench also held that the provisions were not saved by Art. 31-A of the Constitution as those provisions which mainly related to Family Unit, could not be said to be in furtherance of Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. In so holding, the Division Bench relied on a Full Bench decision of that Court in Sucha Singhs case AIR 1974 Punj & Har 162 where similar provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act (Act 10 of 1973) had been struck down. The Full Bench decision in Sucha Singhs case (supra) has since been reversed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1040 of 1976 (reported in AIR 1977 SC 915). This Court has taken the view that the provisions of Punjab land Reforms Act are saved by both Arts. 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution. The foundation on which the decision in Saroj Kumaris case (supra) striking down certain provisions of the Haryana Act (26 of 1972) rested has thus disappeared.
3. However, after the decision in Saroj Kumaris case AIR 1975 Punj & Har 353 (supra) the Act (26 of 1972) and the Rules framed under S. 31 thereof were amended extensively; the Act was first amended by Haryana Act 17 of 1976 which Amending Act was also put in the Ninth Schedule (vide: Item No. 137). the Act was further amended by Haryana Acts Nos. 40 and 47 of 1976, 14 of 1977 and 18 of 1978, but the last four Amending Acts have not been put in the Ninth Schedule. It is, therefore, clear that the amendments effected in the Principal Act by Amending Act 17 of 1976 will receive the protective umbrella of Art. 31-B but not the amendments effected by the last four Acts. Moreover, though the Principal Act as amended by Act 17 of 1976 will be under the protective umbrella of Art. 31-B, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 as originally framed or even after amendments, being subordinate legislation and not specified in the Ninth Schedule may not receive such protection (vide: Prag Ice & Oil Mills case (1978) 3 SCR).
4. After the Principal Act (26 of 1972) was amended as above, several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the vires of some of the provisions of the Act. Since the Principal Act as well as the Amending Act 17 of 1976 had been put in Ninth Schedule, the challenge was based on the ground that those provisions were vague, uncertain, ambiguous and mutually inconsistent and, therefore, should be struck down and neither Article 31-A nor Art. 31-B of the Constitution could save such provisions. The High Court rejected the plea, and in our view rightly, on the ground that a statute enacted by a Legislature falling within its competence which did not offend any fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitut
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
