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