KUNJ BEHARI LAL BUTAIL AND ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 1054 · Decided: 18-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KUNJ BEHAR! LAL BUTAIL A."'ID ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 18, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD, R.C. LAHOTI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.) 
Admi11istrative Law : 
Delegated legislation-Essential legislative function-Held, cannot be 
C delegated by the legislature-Only a11cillary or subordinate legislative fu11ctions 
may be delegated--Act delegating rule maki11g power to the State Government 
;for canyillg out the purposes of tliis Act"-He/d, is a general delegation 
without guidelines-Such delegated powers cannot be used to bring within its 
11et a subject excluded by the Act itself or to bring into existence substantive 
D rights or obligations or disabilities 11ot contemplated by the provisions of the 
Act-Delegated legislation must advance the purposes of the statute if is 
framed under and unless it does so, it can11ot be sustai11ed. 
Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 : 
E 
Section 26--Delegating rule making power to the State Government 
circumscribed by the Act itself, ''for canying out the purposes of this 
Act''-State Government framing Rules making complete prohibiti011 of trans-
! er of land subservient to tea plantation-Held, such Rules cannot be sus-
tained because no purpose sought to be achieved by the Act is advanced by 
F such a prohibition--Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 
1973---Administrative Law-Doctrine of ultra vires. 
Sections 26 and S(g) - Power delegated to State to make rules to cany 
out pwposes of the Act - Tea pla11tations and areas necessary for purposes 
G subservient to a tea plantation were expressly exempted from the provisions 
of the AcrState framing rule 3( lj, proviso by a Gazette Notification •vherein 
complete prohibition was pllt 011 trans/ er of land subservient to a tea planta-
tion-Held, Proviso to Rule 3( I) was ultra vires the Act - Himachal Pradesh 
Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 Rule 3( 1) proviso - Administrative 
H Law - Doctrine of ultra vires. 
1054 
...,_ 
K.B.L. BUTAIL v. STATE 
1055 
To consolidate and amend the laws relating to ceiling on land holding A 
in the State, the Legislative Assembly of the Respondent State enacted 
Himachal Pradesh Ceiling 011 Land Holdings Act, 1972. Jn exercise ofpov.er 
cocferred under Section 26 of the Act, the State Government framed the 
Himachal Prudesb Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973. Rule 3 of the said 
Rules provided for areas to be treated as subservient to tea plantation. 
Proviso appended to sub-rule (l) just below clause (d) was inserted by 
amendment through Notification published in Gazette Extraordinary 
dated 26.4.1986. 01.1 21.8.1990, the Registrar issued a general Circular to all 
Tehsildars-cum-Sub-!legistrar directing them not to register the sale deed 
B 
in n:sp:!ct of lands being sold by land owners exempted from the provisions 
of the Act. The constitutional validity of amendment made in the Rules and 
the Circular was challenged by the appellants in a writ petition before the 
High Court, as the effort at alienating a piece of land subservient to tea 
plantation was sought to be put into jeopardy. High Court dismissed the 
writ petition. Hence this appeal. 
c 
It was contended by the appellants that the Act was not applicable to D 
land subservient to tea estates and therefore, a provision made in the Rules 
framed in exercise of power delegated by the Act but proposing to make 
provision as regards a subject excluded within the purview of the Act itself 
was ultra vires the provisions of the Act; that the prohibition imposed by the 
amended rule suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness 
inasmuch as though an alineation of land forming part of tea plantation 
iti..;lf was not proltibited either by the Act or the Rult.'S but alienation of 
land subservient to tea plantation was sought to be restrained; that lands 
covered by seven categories as defined in clauses (a) to (g) of Section S have 
been excluded from the applicability of the provisions of the Act; and that 
Section 26 delegates to the State Government the legislative power of 
malting rules which delegation was circumscribed by the expression "for 
carrying out the purposes of this Act". 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
F 
HIELD : 1. Section 26 of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 G 
delegates to the State Government the legislative power of making rules 
wliich delegation is circumscribed by the expression • "for carrying out the 
purposes of this Act"

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