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

1976 Supreme(HP) 29

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.S.PATHAK,D.B.LAL,C.R.THAKUR
RAJKUMAR RAJINDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. W. Ps. Nos. 4, 12, 23 of 1974; 9, 12, 28, 345 to 347 of 1975 and 6, 50, 51 and 52 of 1976
Decided On : 06/23/1976

Advocates Appeared:
H.S. Thakur, for Petitioner Advocate:General and Joseph Dina Nath, for Respondents.

The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

Headnote:

LAND CEILING - Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Validity - Challenge - Provisions of the Act - Interpretation - Scope - Constitutional validity - Articles 14, 15, 19, 26 and 31 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and the proceedings taken thereunder, contending that the provisions of the Act violated Articles 14, 15, 19, 26, and 31 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of the Act were constitutionally valid and did not violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court interpreted and analyzed the various provisions of the Act, including the definition of 'family', 'permissible area', and the principles for determining the permissible area, and concluded that the Act was a valid exercise of legislative power and did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 violated Articles 14, 15, 19, 26, and 31 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Act was a valid exercise of legislative power?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of the Act did not violate Articles 14, 15, 19, 26, and 31 of the Constitution of India. The Court interpreted and analyzed the various provisions of the Act and concluded that the Act was a valid exercise of legislative power and did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. 2. The Court held that the Act was a valid exercise of legislative power. The Court observed that the State Legislature was competent to enact legislation in respect of land, including forests, and that the Act did not conflict with any other law or enactment.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 were constitutionally valid and did not violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

R. S. Pathak, C. J.:- The petitioners in this and the connected writ petitions challenge the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and the proceedings taken thereunder.

2. It may be mentioned that after a preliminary hearing of the writ petitions we found it desirable, in view of the nature of the questions raised before us, that learned counsel for the parties should file a written statement of their submissions and learned counsel were informed that during the oral hearing of the writ petitions they would be confined to the points set out in their respective statements. Written statements of submissions have been filed by Shri R.N. Malhotra, Shri H.S. Thakur and Shri K.D. Sud and they have orally argued their case on that basis. Learned counsel for the remaining petitioners have adopted the submissions so made.

3. The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) was passed by the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly on December 21, 1972 and received the assent of the President of India on July 10, 1973. Subsequently it was amended by the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance 1973, published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra (Extraordinary) of October 3, 1973. The Ordinance was replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1973. On September 7, 1974 Parliament enacted the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 and thereby inserted the impugned Act as Entry 73 in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.

4. At the outset; a conspectus of the impugned Act would be in order. As its Long Title indicates, the Act is intended to consolidate and amend the laws relating to a ceiling on land holdings in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Section 2 declares that it is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Broadly, the impugned Act provides for the separation of the area of the land holdings which a person may retain (the `permissible area) from the remaining area (the surplus area) which vests in the State Government for the purpose of disposal in accordance with the impugned Act. Section 4 lays down the principles on which the permissible area of a person or a family has to be determined. A person has been defined by Section 3 (m) to mean a `land-owner, tenant and mortgagee with possession, and the expression includes `a company, a family, and association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property. A family has been defined under Section 3 (e) to mean a `husband, wife and their children or any one or more of them. For the purpose of determining the permissible area, land has been divided into different categories, land under assured irrigation capable of growing two crops in a year, land under assured irrigation capable of growing one crop in a year and other lands including land under orchards. Different ceilings have been prescribed for the three categories. A larger permissible area has been contemplated in respect of land in certain agriculturally poorer regions of the State. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 prescribe the permissible area for a person or a family consisting of a husband, wife and three minor for children By virtue of sub-section (3) the permissible area of a family has been increased by one-fifth of the permissible area under sub-sections (1) and (2) for each additional minor member of a family subject to the condition that the aggregate permissible area does not exceed twice the permissible area of a family under sub-sections (1) and (2). Under sub-section (4), every adult son of a person is treated as a separate unit. By reason of sub-section (6), where a person is a member of the family, land held by him together with the land held by all the members of the family will be taken into

































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top