SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Kar) 225

Karnataka High Court
Judges : K.S.Puttaswamy
T.KHANDE RAO AND SONS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Writ Petns 3693 Of 1978
Decided On : 09/14/1978

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a State Act becomes inoperative and void if it is found to be repugnant to a Central Act, leading to its striking down.

Headnote:

Vacant Lands - Constitutional Validity - Karnataka Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975 - S. 1, S. 3, S. 4, S. 5 of the Act - The court discussed the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975 in light of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The court found that the State Act was repugnant to the Central Act and therefore became inoperative and void, leading to its striking down.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975, which placed restrictions on their right to dispose of vacant lands in certain cities. The respondents justified the continuance of the State Act, citing the need to prevent speculative transactions in vacant land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Act was repugnant to the Central Act and therefore became inoperative and void, leading to its striking down.

Issues: The issues included the constitutional validity of the State Act in light of the Central Act, the applicability of Arts. 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, and the power of the State Government to grant exemptions under the State Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that on the passing of the Central Act and its extension to the State of Karnataka, the State Act became inoperative and void due to its repugnancy with the Central Act.

Final Decision: The court struck down the Karnataka Vacant Land in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975.

( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act No. 36 of 1975) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the State Act'), for which reason I propose to dispose of them by a common order.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, 'the State Act' has placed certain restrictions or prohibitions on the right of the petitioners to dispose of the vacant lands/sites owned by them in Cities of Bellary and Shimoga, for which reason, they have moved this Court to strike it down on diverse grounds. It is the case of the petitioners that 'the State Act', whatever its validity when it was enacted, on the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act No. 33 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Central Act') being repugnant to that Act, cannot continue and even it is can continue, it is violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) IN a common statement of objections, the respondents have justified the continuance of 'the state Act'. The respondents admit the continuance and the applicability of 'the State Act', among others to the Cities of Bellary and Shimoga. It is pleaded by the respondents, that the State government had approached the Central Government to accord its previous approval to extend 'the Central Act' to the cities of Davangere, Gulbarga, Bellary, Bijapur, Shimoga and bhadravathi and the same has not so far been sanctioned by it, and to prevent speculative transactions in vacant land in those Cities it is necessary to continue 'the State Act'. The respondents deny that 'the State Act' stands repealed or the same is violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) WITH the object of achieving the directive principles enshrined in sub-arts. (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution of India, the Central and various State Governments, among them one such being Karnataka, were seriously contemplating legislation for the imposition of ceiling on vacant lands in urban areas or agglomerations, acquisition of land in excess of the ceiling limit, regulate the construction of buildings on such lands, prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering and bring about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, which objectives, for brevity will be preferred to by me hereafter as 'urban ceiling'. Evidently, pending a detailed examination and legislation thereto, the Governor of Karnataka with the previous instructions of the President on 17-6-1975, promulgated an ordinance called the Karnataka Vacant Land in urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Ordinance, 1975 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 4 of 1975) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Ordinance'), to prevent speculative alienations before the necessary legislation is enacted thereto and the preamble to the Ordinance expressly adverts to this aspect. The Ordinance came into force on 17-6-1975. Sub-section (3) of S. 1 of 'the ordinance' while conferring power on the Government to extend the Ordinance to any other urban area on a date to be specified by it, made the Ordinance applicable to the Cities of bangalore, Hubli, Dharwar, Mysore, Mangalore, Belgaum, Gulbarga, Bellary, Davangere, bijapur, Shimoga and Bhadravathi. Sub-section (b) of Section 3 defines 'compact block' as meaning any block of vacant land in an urban area, exceeding one thousand square meters in extent whether owned by one person or jointly by more than one person or owned in contiguous part separately by one or more members of a family unit and whether or not divided by a private road, street, land, footway, passage or drain, natural or artificial. S. 3 (f) defines an 'urban area'. S. 3 (g) defines 'vacant land' as land in an urban area, agricultural or non-agricultural, other than land































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top