1. Challenge to the validity of provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, regarding the computation of ceiling area by considering land held outside the State. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 631
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHRIKANT BHALCHANDRA KARULKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 13, 1994
Advocates:
Anip Sachthey, G.RAMASVAMY, H.A.RAICHURA, H.VAHI, MINAKSHI ARORA, P.H.Parekh, R.F.NARIMAN, S.H.SANJANWALA, S.K.DHOLAKIA, SUDHIR VALIA, U.Sagar
Anip Sachthey, G.RAMASVAMY, H.A.RAICHURA, H.VAHI, MINAKSHI ARORA, P.H.Parekh, R.F.NARIMAN, S.H.SANJANWALA, S.K.DHOLAKIA, SUDHIR VALIA, U.Sagar
Important Points
A state law fixing agricultural land ceilings within its territory is not extraterritorial if it considers land owned outside the state to determine permissible holding limits, provided a real and sufficient territorial nexus exists between the subject matter and the state.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Extraterritorial Operation of State Laws
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Sch.7 List.3 Entry.42, Art.245(1), Sch.7 List.2 Entry.18, Art.246
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS CEILING ACT: S.6(3)(a)
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS CEILING ACT: S.6(3)(a)
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 245 and 246 – Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 – Section 6, 4, 10 and 11 – Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Appellants are owners of agricultural lands in the State of Gujarat also hold agricultural land in another part of India outside State of Gujarat was inserted which provides for computing ceiling area of a person who also owns land in another part of India outside State of Gujarat down that for computing ceiling area of such a person in the State of Gujarat his holding in another part of India has also to be taken into account respect of some of appellants notices were issued by State of Gujarat for reopening the ceiling cases under amended provisions respect of other petitioners either notices were issued under amended provisions to enable them to file their objections or final orders were passed pursuant to said provisions – Held, Whether in this State or any other part of India in excess of the ceiling area, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for time being in force or usage, be deemed to be surplus land, and shall be dealt with in manner hereinafter provided for surplus land obvious that provisions of Bombay Act entirely different plain reading of patent that Maharashtra Legislature was making law in respect of land held by a person anywhere in India – Expression "all land held by a person or as case may be by a family unit whether in this State or any other part of India clearly indicates intention on part of Maharashtra Legislature to make extraterritorial law – No assistance can be taken by the learned counsel from the full bench judgment of the Bombay High court – Appeals are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether provisions considering land ownership outside the State for determining ceiling limits within the State have extraterritorial operation and exceed the State Legislature's legislative competence. (Para 4 )
3. The State has competence under Entry 18 List II and Entry 42 List III; a real territorial nexus exists as the law regulates land within the State. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. A law is not extraterritorial if it regulates subjects within the State, even if it considers factors outside the State to determine the extent of such regulation. (Para 8 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs. (Para 10 )
6. What is the doctrine of territorial nexus in the context of State legislation?
A State law is not considered extraterritorial if there is a real and non-illusory connection between the persons or property subject to the Act and the State, and the liability imposed is relevant to that connection. (Para 7 )
7. Does considering land ownership outside a State to determine ceiling limits within the State constitute extraterritorial legislation?
No. If the law fixes a ceiling on agricultural land within the State and the surplus land is declared within the State, considering land held outside the State as a factor does not make the law extraterritorial. (Para 8 )
8. How does the court distinguish between a law that is extraterritorial and one that merely considers external factors?
A law is extraterritorial if it purports to make land held anywhere in India surplus; however, it is intra-territorial if it only regulates land within the State while using external holdings to determine the permissible ceiling area. (Para 8 , 9 )
Judgment
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
( 1 ) THE appellants challenged the validity of S. 6 (3-A), 4, 10 and 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Act) by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High court on the ground that these provisions were extraterritorial in their operation and, as such, were beyond the legislative competence of the Stale Legislature under Article 245 (1 of the Constitution of India. The High court upheld the validity of the provisions and dismissed the writ petitions. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High court.
( 2 ) THE appellants are the owners of agricultural lands in the State of Gujarat. They also hold agricultural land in another part of India outside the State of Gujarat. Section 6 (3-A) of the Act was inserted by the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 which provides for computing the ceiling area of a person who also owns land in another part of India outside the State of Gujarat. It lays down that for computing the ceiling area of such a person in the State of Gujarat, his holding in another part of India has also to be taken into account. In respect of some of the appellants notices were issued by the State of Gujarat for reopening the ceiling cases under the amended provisions. In respect of other petitioners either notices were issued under the amended provisions to enable them to file their objections or final orders were passed pursuant to the said provisions
( 3 ) SECTION 6 (3-A) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:
"6 (3-A ). Where any person holds any land in any other part of India, outside the State, then, the area of land so held by him in such other part, not exceeding the maximum area of land which such person is entitled to hold in such other part of India under any law, if any, relating to ceiling 462 on land, used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes, shall be excluded from the ceiling area in excess of which a person is not entitled to hold land under this section and the extent of land determined after so excluding such area shall in relation to such person, be deemed to be the ceiling area, to be held by him in this State:
PROVIDED that where any such person disposes of, at any time before the determination of ceiling area under this Act, any land or part thereof so held by him in any other part of India outside the State in accordance with the provisions of law in force in such part, the area equal to the land or part thereof so disposed of shall not be excluded while determining the ceiling area, to be held by him in this State. "it is clear from the plain language of Section 6 (3-A) of the Act that for the purpose of computing the permissible area of a person in the State of Gujarat the area held by him in any other part of India, not exceeding the maximum area of land which such person is entitled to hold there, is to be excluded from the permissible ceiling area under the Act. In other words, the ceiling area of land permissible under the Act is reduced by deducting the area of the land owned by a person in another State - not exceeding the maximum area of land which such person is entitled to hold in the other State - and whatever is the balance would be the ceiling area in the State of Gujarat under the Act. If a person already holds land in other State/states in excess of the ceiling provided under the Act, he becomes disentitled to hold any land in the State of Gujarat. Holding agricultural land outside the State of Gujarat is, thus, considered as a relevant factor for deciding whether a person can hold agricultural land in the State of Gujarat and, if so, to what extent
( 4 ) MR G. Ramaswamy and Mr R. F. Nariman, Senior Advocates, appearing for the appellants, have vehemently contended that in pith and substance Section 6 (3-A) of the Act has extraterritorial operation in the sense that the land owned by a person outside the State of Gujarat
