PETITIONER: LATAFAT ALI KHAN AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U. P. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1971 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN CITATION: 1973 AIR 2070 1971 SCC (2) 355 CITATOR INFO : D 1978 SC1296 (19,46,47) RF 1992 SC1033 (60) ACT: U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (U.P. 1 of 1961), s. 6(xvii) and r. 4(4) of the Rules made thereunder- If protected by Arts. 31A and 31B. HEADNOTE: Section 6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and rule 4(4) of the rules made thereunder are protected by Arts. 31A and 31B of the Constitution. [720C-D] (a)They are part of a scheme of land reform in U.P. and would therefore be protected from attack under Art. 31A. [720D] (b)The rule does not go beyond the powers conferred by the section read with s. 44 of the Act, and the Act is included to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. If a statutory rule is within the power conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 31B the rule cannot further be scrutinised under Arts. 14, 19 and 31. [720C] JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 261 of 1968.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for
the enforcement of fundamental rights.
S. C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the petitioner.
S. C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana, for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, C. J.–This petition under Art. 32 has been filed by
the three appellants in Civil Appeals No. 2018-2020 of 1968,
in which we have just delivered judgment. In this petition
the vires of s. 6, cl. (xvii), of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act 1 of 1961)-
hereinafter referred to as the Act-and rule 4(4) of the U.
P. Imposition of Ceilings and Land Holdings Rules, 1961,
have been challenged. It is urged that these provisions
violate Art. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and 31(1) of the
Constitution. The learned counsel for the State contended
that the impugned provisions are protected by Art. 31B of
the Constitution, as the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is included in the Ninth Schedule
as item 58. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in
reply, urged (1) that the impugned provisions have nothing
to do with land reform, and (2) that rules made under the
Act do not enjoy the protection of Art. 318. It is admitted
that the land
720
in dispute is a ‘holding’ within S. 3(d) of the Act. The
definition reads :
“Holding” means the land or lands held by a
person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon
Samaj or ant asami mentioned in Section 11 of
the Uttar Pradesh, Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under
the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-
tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a
sublessee of a Government lessee, where the
period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with
the period of the lease.”
It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers
conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 31B,
it is difficult to say that the rule must further be
scrutinised under-Arts. 14, 19, etc. Rule 4(4) seems to us
to be a rule which does not go beyond the powers conferred
under s. 6(xvii), read with S. 44 of the Act. At any rate,
S. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) are part of a scheme of land reform
in U.P. and would be protected from attack under Art. 31A of
the Constitution.
In the result we hold that s. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) are
valid The petition accordingly fails. In the circumstances
there will be no order as to costs.
V. P. S. Petition dismissed..
721