K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 09-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 19 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R. 636 
K.l PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2003) 
AUGUST 9, 2011 
[S.H. KAPADIA CJI, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, K.S. 
RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR AND ANIL R. 
DAVE, JJ.) 
C 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - ss.110 and 140 -
ExemiJtion provisions - Exemption under s. 107 for lands 
used for cultivation of Linaloe - Power to withdraw the 
exemption uls. 110 -
Constitutional validity of s. 110 -
Withdrawal of exemption vide notification dated 08. 03. 1994 
D issued under s. 110 - Notification in question not laid before 
the Legislature - Validity of the Notification - Held: Power to 
withdraw exemption has not been conferred on the State 
Government, but evidently retained by the Legislature - The 
Legislature's apathy in granting is discernible from the 
E 
language used in sub-section (2) of s.107, which says that no 
person shall after the commencement of the Amendment Act 
acquire in any manner for the cultivation of Linaloe, land of 
an extent which together with the land cultivated by Linaloe, 
if any, already held by him exceeds ten units - Legislature, 
F 
therefore, as matter of policy, wanted to give only a conditional 
exemption for lands used for Linaloe cultivation and the policy 
was to empower the State Government to withdraw the same 
especially when the law is that no person can claim exemption 
as a matter of right - The legislative will was to make s. 107 
subject to s. 110 and not the will of the delegate, hence, 
G overriding effect has to be given to s. 110 - The contention 
that s. 110 is void due to excessive delegation of legislative 
powers, is not acceptable - Further, the Act including s. 110 
was placed in IXth Schedule in the year 1965 and, hence, 
H 
636 
K.T. PLANTATION PVT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF 
637 
KARNATAKA 
immune from challenge in a court of law - Land used for A 
linaloe cultivation would be governed by the provisions of the 
Act which is protected under Article 31 B of the Constitution 
having been included in the IXth Schedule - The appellant-
company could not have held the land used for the cultivation 
of Linaloe on the date of the commencement of the Act -
B 
Further on withdrawal of exemption vide notification dated 
08.03.94 the appellant-company became disentitled to hold 
the land - Non-laying of the notification dt. 8. 3. 94 under s. 140 
of the Act before the State Legislature was a curable defect 
and did not affect the validity of the notification or action taken c 
thereunder - No force in the contention that opportunity of 
hearing is a pre-condition for exercising powers under s. 11 O 
of the Act - No such requirement has been provided under 
s.107 or s.110 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 318 -
Administrative Law - Delegated legislation. 
The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate 
(Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 - Constitutional validity of 
D 
- Plea of repugnancy between the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Roerich and Devika Rani 
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act- Tenability of -
E 
Held: Plea is not acceptable -
Under Article 254 of the 
Constitution, a State law passed in respect of a subject matter 
comprised in List Ill would be invalid if its provisions are 
repugnant to a law passed on the same subject by Parliament 
and that too only if both the laws cannot exist together - If the 
F 
dominant intention of two legislations is different, they cover 
different subject matter then merely because the two 
legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects, they do 
not cover the same field -
The Roerich and Devika Rani 
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, primarily 
G 
falls under Entry 18 List JI, since the dominant intention of the 
legislature was to preserve and protect Roerichs' Estate 
covered by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms 
Act, on the State Government withdrawing the exemption in 
respect of the land used for linaloe cultivation - The said 
H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A Acquisition Act. though primarily falls under Entry 18 List JI 
incidentally also deals with the acquisition of paintings, 
artefacts and other valuable belongings of Roerichs' and, 
hence, the Act partly falls under Entry 42 List Ill as well -
Since the dominant purpose of the Act was to preserve and 
B protect Roerichs' Estate as part of agrarian reforms, the 
inclusion of ancillary measures would not t

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