Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bal Raj Tuli and Bhopinder Singh Dhillon JJ.
Saroj Kumari
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ No. 4187 of 1973,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 9, 1974
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - PERMISSIBLE AREA FOR FAMILY - ARTIFICIAL CONCEPT OF FAMILY - VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY - INCOMPLETE AND UNWORKABLE PROVISIONS - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - PROVISIONS STRUCK DOWN - RULE 5 OF HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS RULES, 1973 - ULTRA VIRES SECTION 4 OF THE ACT - STRUCK DOWN.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous landowners filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (the Act) and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 (the Rules). The main contention of the petitioners was that the provisions of the Act and the Rules pertaining to the permissible area for a family were unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the Rules relating to the permissible area of a family were ultra vires the Constitution and struck them down. The Court found that the concept of family under the Act was artificial and unknown to any other law, and that no provision was made in the Act as to how the land of the family would be possessed by its various members, how succession to that property would take place, and what would be the respective rights of each member in the land of the family. The Court also found that the provisions of the Act and the Rules were vague, uncertain, incomplete, and unworkable, and that they violated the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules relating to the permissible area of a family were ultra vires the Constitution? 2. Whether the concept of family under the Act was artificial and unknown to any other law? 3. Whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules were vague, uncertain, incomplete, and unworkable? 4. Whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules violated the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Act and the Rules relating to the permissible area of a family were ultra vires the Constitution because: - The concept of family under the Act was artificial and unknown to any other law. - No provision was made in the Act as to how the land of the family would be possessed by its various members, how succession to that property would take place, and what would be the respective rights of each member in the land of the family. - The provisions of the Act and the Rules were vague, uncertain, incomplete, and unworkable. - The provisions of the Act and the Rules violated the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court accepted the petitions and declared the following provisions of the Act and the Rules ultra vires the Constitution and struck them down: - The definition of "family" in Section 3(m) of the Act. - The words "or family consisting of husband, wife and upto three minor children (herein referred to as the "primary unit of family")" after the word "person" in Section 4(1) of the Act. - Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. - The words "primary unit of family" in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, which were substituted with the word "person". - The Explanation to Section 7 of the Act. - Explanation I to Section 9(1) of the Act. - The words "co-operative society and or a company" in Explanation II to Section 9(1) of the Act. - Rule 5 of the Rules.
BAL RAJ TULI, J.
1. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), received the assesent of the President of India on Dec. 22, 1972, and kas published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated December 23, 1972, on which date it came into force. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Act, the Governor of Haryana, by notification No G. S. R. 99/H.A.26/72/ Sec.31/73 dated August 28, 1973, promulgated the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called the Rules), to carry out the objects of the Act. A number of landowners have filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act and the Rules, out of which 172 petitions have been placed before us for decision. This order will dispose of all those writ petitions. (Petition numbers omitted - Ed.)
2. The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to ceiling on land holdings in the State of Haryana and the statement of objects and reasons reads as under :-
"Now in the State of Haryana two enactments, that is, The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, are in force. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act applies only to those parts of the State which were comprised in the State of Punjab before 1st of November, 1956. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, applies to those territories of the Erstwhile State of Pepsu which now form part of the State of Haryana. It has become essential that the law relating to ceiling on agricultural land contained in the aforesaid two Acts and which applies to certain parts of the State of Haryana should be unified and there should be only one Act on the ceiling of agricultural land for the whole of the State of Haryana. Secondly, the Central Committee on Land Reforms appointed by the Government of India evolved a policy which sought to make available additional land to be distributed among landless persons to guarantee equitable distribution of land. To achieve this object it has been decided that permissible area be reduced, that the surplus area should vest in the State Government and a family is to be treated a unit for determining the permissible area. It has also been decided that certain exemptions which were allowed under the two existing enactments should be withdrawn. Thirdly, the surplus land is to be acquired by the State Government for allotment to the landless persons and further proprietary rights are to be conferred on them."
Section 2 of the Act declares that the Act has been passed 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. The purpose of this declaration was to make the provisions of the Act immune from challenge on grounds of violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, as is provided in Article 31-C.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have not challenged that the provisions of the Act, except those which are being declared ultra vires in the later part of this judgment, pertain to agrarian reforms and give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. This matter was dealt with in detail by a Full Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, in Sucha Singh Bajwa V/s. State of Punjab, ILR (1974) 1 Punj and Har 575 : (AIR 1974 Punj and Har 162) (FB), and it was held that the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, which pertained to agrarian reforms and gave 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, were immune from attack on the ground that they took away or abridged any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
