DISTRICT COUNCIL OF UNITED KHASI & JAINTIA HILLS & ORS. ETC. versus MISS SITIMON SAWIAN ETC.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 25-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

398 
DISTRICT COUl'\ICIL OF UNITED KHASI & JAINTIA IDLLS 
. & ORS;- ETC. 
v. 
MI~S SITIMON SA WIAN·ETC. 
August -25, 1971 
IS. M. SIKR!, C.J., G. K. MIT:rER, c. A. VAIDJALINGAM, 
P. JAGANMOHAN l,lEDDY AND L D. DuA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950--Sixth 
Schedu/e-,-Para 3(1)(a)-Power · 
cf District Counci( to rnake law with respect to "allot1nent, occupation or 
.use, or the sett.jng apart of land"-!J includes power to 1nake laws w1th 
respect to transfer of land-United Khasi..Jaintia Hills District (Transfer 
of Land) Act, !953-Sect(on 3--Constitutio'nality of. 
· 
By virtue of the Sixth Schedule· tq the Constitution the United Khasi-
Jaintia Hills District has been con,stituted~ into. an autonomous district 
with a District Council. 
Para 3(1) (a) of the Schedule 
authorises 
the 
District Council to make laws ''with respect to'' "the allotment occupation 
·Or use, or the setting apart, of land", 
for the purpose;; 'mentioned therein. 
Ibe District Council passed the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Trans-
fer of Land) Act, 1953 section 3 of \Vhich provided that "no land within-
the District shall be sold, mortgaged leased bartered gifted or otherwise 
transferred ...... " The preamble to the Act recited that it was "necessary 
to make provisions in the Autonomous District of 
~he United 
Khasi· 
Jaintia Hills 'vith respect to the transfer, aUotn1ent, oCcupation or use of 
land for ~any Jiurposes likely to promote the 
interests of 'the inhabitants 
thereof'\ On the question whether para 3 (I) (a) of thP. Sixth Schedule 
-confers on the Disfi'ict Council power to make laws with ri;spect to transfer 
of land . 
.HELD : 
The subject of transfer is ckarly beyond the scope of the 
law-making power conferred.on the District Council. by tbe Constitution 
.and therefore, s. 3. of the impugned Act is void being beyond the juris-
J:iiction of the District Council. 
The bracketing together of the· words '''allotment, occupation or use, or 
·setting apart of land!~ for thc ... purposcs mentioned therein 
without using 
words like "transfer" or •:alienation" is clearly indicative of the Constitu-
tion makers' intention to restrict 'power of the District Council 
only· to 
mak~ laws with respeCt to actual use or occupation of the land allotted or 
set apart for 1he purposes stated therein. 
Jt was not intended to.extend 
to "transfer of land". 
Nor can the \Vords used in para 3 ( 1) (a) of the 
Schedule be read as implying transfer. The purpose. object and scheme of 
niaking such provision for the' hill areas also goes a~ainst inclusion of the 
poW'er of transfer. 
And the addition. in the preamble to the Act, of the 
word "transfer" to the words allotment occupation Or use of land" used in 
para 3(1)(a) of the Schedule is indicative of an intent to enlarge the scope 
of the object and purpose of enacting the in1pugncd Act beyond the Jimits 
,of the power conferred by the Constitution. [404 0-H; 405 B, 404 BJ 
rt is clear from Para 12 of the Sixth Schedule read with pura3 (I) (a 1 
that the District Councils. unlike the Parlia111cnt and the State Legislatures 
are not intended to be clothed with plenary . PO\Ver of legislation. 
Their 
oower to make Jaws i-; expressly )imifcd hy }he provisions of the Sixth 
Schedule v.'hlch has created them and they can do 
nothing ..beyond 
the 
A ; 
B 
c 
D -
E 
F 
G 
H 
-
A 
KHASI & JAINTIA HILLS v. SITIMON SAWIAN (Dua, !.) 
399 
limits which circumscribe their power. It is beyond t~ domain of th.: 
courts to enlarge constructively their power to make laws. [407 A-Bl 
Further, the proviso to para 3(l)(a) merely serves to ensure that no 
law made by the Regional and District Counc:Js with respect to allot-
ment, occupation or use or setting apart, of land, as mentioned in that 
clause, shall have the effect of preventing compulsory acquisition of Ian<I 
for public purposes, by the Go,·ernment of Assam in accordance with the 
law.in force authorising such acquisition. 
The proviso does not in any 
way after the operati\·e effect of clause (a). [407 C-E] 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 1546 
and 1547 of 1968. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 3, 1968 cf 
·C 
the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 384 and 
408 o.f 1965. 
Niren De, Attorney-General and D. N. Mukherjee, for the 
appellants (in both the appeals). 
A. K. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and Rath in Das, for the respon-
.D 
dents (in both the appeals). 
E 
F 
G 
'H 
The Judgment of the Court w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.