SETH NAND LAL & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 09-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1181 
SETH NANO LAL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
May 9, 1980 
1(Y .. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA hER, 
V. D. TuLZAPURKAR & A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
• 
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Haryana Act 26 of 1972)-
.c~nstitutional validity of-Artificial definition of family unit-Sections 
4(1), 
4(3), 7, 8, 9, 11(1) and (2), whetill?r violate Article 14 of the Consti111tion. 
The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Act 26 of 1972) receiv-
ed the assent of the President on 22-12·1972 and was publish\xl in the Oflicial 
Gazette on 23-12-72. Section 2 contained and even now contains the requisite 
deda.ation that it was enacfed for giving effect to the policy of the 
State 
towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39 of 
the Constitution. The' Act was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitu-
tion on 7·9-1974 a.nd, thereby, it came under the protective um1'rella of Art. 31B 
of the c·onstitution. 
In Saroj Kuniari's case A.LR. 1975 Punjab & Haryana 353 relying on an 
·earlier decision of that Court in Sucha Singh's case A.LR. 1974 P & H 162, the 
Punjab & Haryana High Court, being ·unaware of the inclusion of Act 26 of 
1972 in the Ninth Schedule struck down certadn provisions of th:e Act on the 
ground that these provisions violated the rights guaranteed by Part III of the 
Constitution. •The Full Bench decision in Sucha Singh's case A.I.R. 1974 Punjab 
& Hary~na 162 was reversed by the Supreme Court in Sucha Singh's case A.I.R. 
1977 S.C. 915, taking the view that the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act 
.are saved by both Articles 31A and 31B of the Constitution. 
However, after the decision in Saroj Kumari's case, Act 26 of 1972 and--the 
Rules framed under ~. 31, thereof were amended extensively; the Act was first 
amended by Haryana Act 17 of 1976 which Amending Act was also put in the 
Ninth Schedule; the Act was further a.nended by Harya.na Acts Nos. 40 and 
47 of 1976, 14 of 1977 and 18' of 1978, but the last four Amending Acts were 
not put in the Ninth S<:hedule. 
Aft'el- the Principal Act was amended as above, several writ petitions were 
, filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court challeng"1g the vires of some of the 
provisions of the Act. 
The Division Bench dismissed all the writ petitions and 
upheld the validity of all the provisions exC'ept •· WA which barred the appear-
ance of any legal practitioner before any officer of authority other than the 
Financial Commissioner in proceedings under the Act 
Th'e Court took 
the 
view that such a provision was repugnant to s. 14 of the Indian Bar Councils 
Act (which had continued in force in view of s. 30 of the Advocates Act 1961 
not having come into force), and therefote ultra vires and invalid. 
In their appeals by special leave the appellants have challenged some of the 
provi!dons of the Act on the grounds substantially different from those that were 
utged before the High Court. Besides their appeals, a large number of writ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G" 
H 
1182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
petitions and also special leave petitions have b"een filed raising almost identical 
grounds of challenge to the provisions of the Principal Act (26 of 1972) 
as 
amended from time to time. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeals and the JX!titions, the Court 
HELD : 1. The amendments effected in the Principal Act by Amending Act 
17 ol 1976 will receive the protective umbrella of Art. 3!B but not the amend· 
ments effected by Acts Nos. 40 & 47 of 1976, 14 of 1977 and 18 of 1978. 
Moreover, though the Principal Act as amended by Act 17 of 1976, will be 
under the protective umbrella of Art. 31B, the Haryana Ceiling on 
I...aLJ 
Holdings Rules, 1973 as originally framed or eve" after amendments, 
being 
subordinate legislation and not specified in the Ninth Schedule may not receive 
such protection. 
Prag Ice and Oil Mills & Anr. v. Union of India, [1978] 
3 S.C.R. 
293, 
applied. 
2. The Principal Act (Act 26 of 1972) together with all the amendments 
made therein which essentially is meant for imposition of ceiling on agricultural 
holdings and acquisition and distribution of the surplus area to landless and 
\veaker sections of the society is in substance and reality an enactment dealing 
with agrarian reform and squarely falls within Art. 31A of the Constitution and 
as. such will enjoy the immunity from the attack on the ground of inconsistency 
with or abridgments of an

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