MAHARAO SAHIB SRI BHIM SINGHJI ETC. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 13-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
r 
862 
MAHARAO SAHIB SRI BHIM SINGHJI ETC. ETC 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
November 13, 1980/July 1, 1985 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD C.J., P.N. BEIAGWATI, V.R. KRISEINA IYER, 
V,0, TULZAPURKAR AND A.P. SEN, JJ.) 
A. 
Urban Land (Celling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act XXX/l/ of 1976) 
-Whether constitutionally vai/d •is-a-vis Articles 39(b) and 
(c) of tht 
Constitution. 
B. Urban Land (Celling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act XXX/l/ of 1976), 
1ection 2(g),-Artificlal definitio11 of family in section 2(/), whether offends against 
Article 14 of the Constltut ion. 
C. 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act XXXJJ/ of 1976), 
section 11(6) ralidity of-~Vhether the maximum limit of the amount of compen· 
sation payable fixed at Rupees two lakhs is illusory and confiscatory and therefore. 
violative of Article 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution, as amended by the Twenty-
fiflh Amendment Act, 1971-Ejft'Cl of the Amendment 
D. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation). Act, 1976 (Act XXX/// of 1976), 
section 23 validity of-The provision subserves the objectives of Articles 39(b) and 
(c) and hence protected by Articles 31 Band C, but the governing test of disposal 
of excess lands being ''social good'', any disposal in any particular case or cases 
which does not subserve that purpos~ will be invalid. 
E. Urban I.and (Ceiling and Regulatian) Act, 1976 section 27(1), validity 
of- Whtther offends Articles 14 and 19(1) (/). 
P. Interpretation of statutes-Rule of reading down the 
provision. 
G 
Perml8'ibillty as a part of the judicial proce&S. 
H 
G. Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 31 and 300.A-Baslc structure of 
the Constitution, thereby applicability of-Whether right to property is a part of 
the basic structure of the Constitution-State's power of "eminent domain", and 
conditions precedent to exercise of that power, t!Xplained. 
H. Constitution of India, 1950-Part IV-Directi•e Principles of State 
Palley, character and cognisabllity by the Courts. 
MSS, BHIM SINGH P. UNION 
I. Interpretation of Constitution and tht approach to be adopted, 
explained. 
A. 
J. lnterpretali•n of statulls-External and Internal Aid•,.,. •f 
LIC. 
W11r4.s and Phrase1-Conctpt and meaning of" PMbli1 Purpose.'' 
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act XXXIll or 
1976) it in force in 17 States and all tho Union Territories in the country.· It 
seet:s to impose a ceiling on vacant lands in urban agglomerations having a 
population of two lakhs or more and for that purpose classifies such urban 
agglomerations in various cities and towns in all the States and Union 
Territories into four categoric• and fixes the ccilina limit for each aucb 
cateaory. 
The primary object and purpose of tho Act, as its long title and tho 
Preamble show, is to provide for the imposition ofa ceiling on vacant land in 
•rban agglomerations. for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling 
limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land for matters 
connected there with, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban 
land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and 
with a view to bring about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglome-
rations to subsl!rve the common good, presumably in furtherance of the 
Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 39(c) and (b) respecti-
vely. The enactment has also been put in the Ninth Schedule as Item 132 by 
the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976; in other words, the 
enactment enjoys the benefit of protective umbrella of both the articles, 
Article 31-B and 31-C as it stood prior to its amendment by the Constitution 
(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. 
By these writ octltions the petitio:iers, w:10 are holders of vacant land 
in the urban agglomerations in various States, are seeking to challenge the 
vires of some of the salient provisions of the Urban Land (CeHin1r and Regula-
tion) Act, 1976 (XXXIII of 1976) and since, according to them, some of tho 
impugned provisions are pivotal and non-severable, having an impact on its 
entire scheme, the whole Act is liable to be struck down as being in-va1id and 
unconstitutional. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for an order quashing 
notices issued to them by the concerned competent authorities under the Act 
and a mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the provisions 
thereof against them. 
Dismissing the petitions and upholding t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.