KRISHNA BHIMRAO DESHPANDE versus LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 03-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KRISHNA BHIMRAO DESHPANDE 
A 
v. 
LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1992 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.J 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 252 read with Schedule VII, List II, Entry ls-Legislation by 
Parliament-Requirement-Cent~al Law on ceiling on urban immovable C 
property in pursuance of Resolution of State Legislature-State Laws on other 
matters relating to the subject-matter of resolutiolt-Lega/ity of 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article'252, Schedule VII, List II, Entry 18-Urban Land (Ceiling and D 
Regulation) Act, 1976 and Kamataka Land Reforms Act as amended in 
1974-0bject and application of-Whether any conflict between the Acts. 
In the year 1972 the Karnataka Legislature passed a resolution 
under Article 252 of the Constitution imposing a ceiling on urban immov-
able property and the acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling E 
limit for public purposes and all the matters connected therewith shall be 
regulated in the State by Parliament by law. 
On 1.4.74 the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act was 
enacted and under the Act the tenant of the land covered by the Act was 
entitled to the grant of occupancy rights after making an application 
under the Act. The Act came into force with effect from 2.1.85. But for the 
purpose of grant of occupancy rights, 1.4.74 was the relevant date. 
In the year 1975 the Kamataka Urban Agglomeration Ordinance 
F 
was passed, whereunder all lands between the periphery of 8 K.Ms. of the G 
municipal limits of Hubli Dharwad were declared as urban agglomeration 
land. 
The Parliament passed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 
Act, 1976 for.:imposition of ceiling on urban properties and the Ceiling Act 
was made' applicable to Kamataka also in view of the resolution passed H 
331 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119'-'2] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
by the State Government. 
B 
c 
The lands involved in the present cases were covered by the develop· 
ment plan by the Belgaum Cit:y Town Planning authority as per the 
Master Plan and they were included and declared as urban agglomeration 
in the City of Hubli under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. 
The owners of the agglomeration lands challenged the order of the 
Land Tribunal under the Land Reforms Act conferring occupancy rights 
on the tenants, before the High Court. They contended that the lands 
involved in the cases were within the purview of the Ceiling Act and 
therefore the provisions of the Land Reforms Act had no application to 
such lands on the ground that the provisions of the Ceiling Act. 
The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. The owner's 
writ appeals were also dismissed by a common judgment by the Division 
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench held that there was no 
D conflict between the two enactments. 
E 
F 
The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P. (Civil) 
No. 16041-42/88. 
Many of the similar writ petitions that were pending before the High 
Court were transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. 
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitions by a common order 
following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Several 
Civil revision petitions filed by the land owners against the ord<r of the 
Appellate Tribunal were dismissed by the High Court. Some of the special 
leave petitions were filed against the order of the High Court in the said 
civil revision petitions. 
The petitioners-land owners contended that when in pursuance of 
the resolution of the State Legislature passed under Article 252 of the 
G Constitution the Parliament legislated in respect of the topic covered by 
the resolution. The Parliamentary law, repealed or superseded the existing 
State legislation on the topic and therefore such law could not be enforced 
thereafter; and that vesting of tenanted laud in the State and conferment 
of occupancy rights under the provisions of the State Act directly fall 
under the subject of imposing ceiling on land holding and other matters 
H incidental or ancillary to the main topic of imposing ceiling and therefore 
K.B. DESHPANDE v. LAND TRillUNAL 
333 
they were fully covered by the Ceiling Act passed by the Parliament and 
the same superseded the State enactment in respect of such lands. 
The respondents submitted that "imposition of ceiling" was a dis~ 
tine! and separately identifiable subject and the Parliament was em-
powered to legislate; that the power of the State to legislate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.