SHRIKANT BHALCHANDRA KARULKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 13-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRIKANT BHALCHANDRA KARULKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 13, 1994 
B 
(KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960-Sections 6(3A)4, JO and 
I I-Fixation of ceiling in respect of agricultural lands within the State-Com-
puting ceiling area of a person who also owns land outside the State- Per-
C missible under section 6(3Af-Extra territorial operation of Act-Legislative 
competence-Doctrine of territorial nexus-Applicability of 
Constitution of India-Articles 245 and 246-Land Ceiling-Comput-
ing ceiling area of a person also owning land in another part of India outside 
State of Gujarar-Permissible u/s 6(3A) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands 
D Ceiling Act, 1961>-Extra territorial operation of Act-Legislative competence 
of State Legislature-Doctrine of territorial nexus-Applicability of. 
The appellants, owners of agricultural lands in the State of Gujarat, 
also held agricultural land outside the State of Gujarat. Notice were issued 
E by the State for reopening the ceiling cases under the amended provisions 
of Section 6(3A) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, 
taking into consideration the land owned by a person outside the State of 
Gujarat while determining the ceiling area of a land owner in the State of 
Gujarat. Appellants challenged the impugned provisions alleging that the 
State Legislature has transgressed its legislative powers by making 
F provisions orthe Act to operate in respect of persons and property beyond 
the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat. The High Court having 
dismissed the writ petitions, appellants preferred the present appeals. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. 1. The State legislature bas no competence to make laws 
which have extra-territorial operation. (573-H) 
1.2. If there is a territorial nexus between the persons/property 
subject matter of the State seek to comply with the provisions of the Act 
H then the Act and the statute cannot be considered .as having ~-ter· 
568 
S.B. KARULKAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
569 
ritorial operation. Sufficiency of the territorial connection involves con-
A 
sideration of two elements, the connection must be real and not illusory 
and the liability sought to be imposed under the Act must be relevant to 
that connection. [573-F-G] 
1.3. The provisions of the Act provide Jor fixation of ceiling in respect B 
of the agricultural lauds which are within the territory of the State of 
Gujarat. The declaration of the surplus land under the Act is also in respect 
of the lands held by various persons in the State of Gujarat. The territorial 
nexus is obvious. It is the land and the persons holding such land within the 
territory of Gujarat to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. The 
territorial connection is thus, real and sufficient and the liability sought to C 
. be imposed under Section 6(3A) of the Act is directly in relation to that 
connection. The factum of a person holding land outside the State of 
Gujarat is undoubtedly an aspect pertinent to the question of his entitle· 
ment under the Act to hold land iirthe State of Gujarat. There is no dispute 
that within the State a ceiling can be rixed by law beyond which no person 
can bold agricultural land, and if for determining the extent of said ceiling, D 
the land held by a person outside the State is taken Into consideration, the 
law pertaining to fixation of ceiling would not ~ome extra territorial. In 
pith and substance the law remains to be a legislation Imposing the celling 
on holding ofland within the State under Entry 18, List II read with Entry 
42 List II, 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. Therefore, when a E 
statute fixes a celling on agricultural land holding within the State, It would 
not become extra-territorial simply because it provides that while determin· 
Ing the permissible area of a person under the said Statute the land owned 
by him outside the State is to be taken into consideration. The impugned 
provisions are within the legislative competence of the State legislature and F 
have been validly enacted. [574-A-G] 
Shankar Rao v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1527n5; decided on 
02.10.1980 (Born) FB (Unreported), distinguished 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application G 
Nos.1-9. 
IN 
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5161-69 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.93 of the Gujarat High H 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPO

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