719
LATAFAT ALI KHAN AND ORS.
f
v.
THE STATE OF U. P.
May 6, 1971.
[S. M. Snw, C.1., G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, A. N. RAY
B
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JI.)
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Ho/dints Act (U.P. 1 of 1961),
.s. 6(xvlr) and r. 4(4) of the Rules made thereunder-If protect•' bv Arts.
31A and 3lB.
Section 6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
C
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 th~
fore be protected from·attack under Art. 31A. [720D]
(b) The rule ·does not go beyond the powers conferred by the section ·
read withs. 44 of the·Aot, 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 scru-
tinised under Arts. 14, 19 and 31.
[720C]
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 0. 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)-bereinafter refer-
red 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 (!) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the State
contended that the impugned provisions are protected by Art.
3 IB 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 (!) 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
D
E
F
G
H
720
B
c
D
SUPllEME COUllT 11.EPOllTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.11..
in dispute is a 'holding' within s. 3(d) of the Act. The definition
reads :
"Holding" l!leans the land or lands held by a person
as a bhumidhar, slrdar, asami of Gaon Samaj or an
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 11ub-
lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the
sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the !eaie.'•
It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers:
conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 3 lB, 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(xvil), 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. 31 A of the Constitution.
In the result we hold that s. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) aro valitl.
The petition accordingly fails.
In the circumstances there will"
be no order as to costs.
~.P. S.
Petition dismissed.
Lex