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

1997 Supreme(All) 592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PALOK BASU, I. M. QUDDUSI, JJ.
SAMVIDHAN BAHALI ANDOLAN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 17736 Of 1997
Decided On : 05/22/1997

Advocates Appeared:
A.P.N.Giri, Gyanendra Mrityunjaya

The creation of revenue districts lies within the exclusive power of the State Government, and the internal arrangement of the State is a matter to be decided by the State Government.

Headnote:

U. P. LAND REVENUE ACT, 1901 - SECTION 11 - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - ARTICLES 254, 372 AND 375 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, seeking to declare it ultra vires in light of Articles 254 and 372 of the Constitution of India. They also sought to quash the declaration of creating six new districts and restrain the authorities from proceeding further in creating new districts.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the validity of Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and dismissed the petition. It held that the creation of revenue districts lies within the exclusive power of the State Government and that the internal arrangement of the State is a matter to be decided by the State Government.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, is ultra vires in light of Articles 254 and 372 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the creation of six new districts is valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Articles 254, 372, and 375 of the Constitution of India and held that they do not restrict the State Government's power to create revenue districts. 2. The court held that Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, empowers the State Government to create new districts and alter the limits of existing districts.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and the creation of six new districts.


( 1 ) PETITIONERS in this writ petition are two 1. Samvindhan Bahali Andolan through its advisor Smt. Saroj Giri and 2. District Bar Association, Allahabad through its secretary Sri Raghave Singh. The relief sought is that :-a. Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 be declared void as ultra vires in the wake of Articles 254 and 372 of the Constitution of India;b. to quash the impugned declaration of creating six new districts namely, Kaushambi, Maha Maya Nagar, Chhatrapati, Sahuji Maharaj Nagar, Mahatma Budha Nagar and Jyotiba Phule Nagar and Chandoli; andc. commanding opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to proceed further in creating new districts including those declared earlier.

( 2 ) SHRI Gyanendra Mrityunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at substantial length. He has taken the Court through the writ petition, various provisions about which reference shall be made hereinafter and also to the provisions of some of the parallel enactment. Shri Yatindra Singh, Addl. Advocate General has put in appearance in opposition on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

( 3 ) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 cannot be protected any longer because of certain provisions contained in the Articles of the Constitution of India. In this connection reliance was placed on the provision of Article 243 (a) added through Chapter IX which itself came to be added by the (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992the definition is as under :-"243. Definitions- In this part, unless the context otherwise requires,-a. "district" means a district in a State;"b. to g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 4 ) APART from the reliance on the aforesaid definition, it was pointed out that under the Code of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure Code the definitions of District exist which may not permit the State to divide or diminish the areaof any existing district.

( 5 ) BESIDES the aforesaid provisions Shri Mrityunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the language of Articles 254, 372 and 375 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) IT may be pointed out that in the State of U. P. the administrative set up concerning the "law relating to the land revenue and the jurisdiction to revenue officer in the U. P. ", the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 came to be enacted. By the said enactment earlier laws such as the Agra Province Land Revenue Act of 1873. The Oudh Land Revenue Act of 1876. The Agra Province Land Revenue Act, 1879. The United Provinces Kanungos and Patwaris Act, 1889 and the North-Western Provinces and Oudh Act, 1890 were1 repealed. Section 11 of the aforesaid U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides as under :-"power to create, alter and abolish divisions, districts, tehsil and sub-divisions-1. The State Government may create new or abolish existing divisions or districts. 2. The State Government may alter the limits of any division, district, or tahsil, and may create new or abolish existing tahsil, and may divide any district into sub-divisions, and may alter the limits of sub-divisions. 3. Subject to the orders of the State Government under sub-section (2), all tahsils shall be deemed to be sub-division of districts. "

( 7 ) IT may be pointed out that the State Government is empowered to appoint the Commissioner of certain divisions and by virtue of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act appoint Collector of the District. The Commissioner and the Collector are empowered to exercise all powers and discharge all the duties conferred by the U. P. Land Revenue Act and all other Acts which they are empowered to exercise under those other enactment.

( 8 ) IN view of the clear provision existing it is not known on what basis the creation of district can be stopped. The argument that the word district has been defined in Article 243 and in this connection reference to the said Article and other Ar





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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