JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Section 44-B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 (the Ceiling Act) prohibits appearance of a legal practitioner on behalf of any party to proceedings under the said Act before various authorities specified therein. The only point raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether that section is (i) void for want of legislative competence and (ii) unenforceable being repugnant to section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and section 14(1)(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1976.

2. In our view, the point has to be answered in the negative. Here are our reasons:

In the first place, the validity of the Ceiling Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the cases of (Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 915 and (Waman Rao v. Union of India)2, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 271. Initially, a Division Bench of this Court had upheld the validity of the said Act including section 44-B in the case of (Vithalrao v. The State of Maharashtra)3, A.I.R. 1977 Bom. 99 and this judgment was affirmed in the former Supreme Court case. These decisions are not merely binding precedents but are "law declared" under Article

Click Here to Read the rest of this document