STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS versus SATPAL SAINI

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 08-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] l S.C.R. 658 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS 
v. 
SATPAL SAINI 
(Civil Appeal No.1654 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Power of judicial review -
Issuance of mandamus by High Court for amending the legislation 
- State Government to make suitable amendments to s.118 of the 
HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with HP Tenancy 
and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 to facilitate purchase of any land 
(agricultural and non-agricultural) in the State of Himachal Pradesh 
by the non-agriculturist Himacha/is residing in the State for decades 
together prior to the date of commencement of the 1972 Act, within 
a period of ninety days - Sustainability of - Held: Lm1• enacting 
body is entrusted with the power to enact such legislation as it 
considers necessary to deal with the problems faced by society and 
to resolve issues of concern - Courts do not sit in judgment over 
legislative expediency or upon legislative policy - Judiciary is 
assigned with the fimction of ensuring that executive actions accord 
with the law and that laws and executive decisions accord with the 
Constitution - Court does not have the power or function to direct 
the executive to adopt a particular policy or the legislature to convert 
it into enacted law - High Court transgressed the limitations imposed 
upon the power of judicial review u!Art. 226 by issuing the directions 
to State legislature to amend the law - Directions issued by High 
Court for amending the provisions of the 1972 Act and the Rules 
were unsustainable and set aside - HP Tenancy and Land Reforms 
Act, 1972 - HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 -
Legislation. 
Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 
1990 AIR 1251:1990 (2) SCR 418; K. Sood v. 
Secretary, Civil Aviation 1993 AIR 2285: 1993 (3) SCR 
772; State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student 
of Medical College, Shim/a 1985 AIR 910 : 1985 (3) 
658 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS v. SATPAL 
SAINI 
SCR 676; Asif Hameed & Ors v. State of Jammu & 
Kashmir 19S9 Am 1S99 : 19S9 (3) SCR 19; Union of 
India v. Association for Democratic Reforms 2002 Am 
2112 : 2002 (3) SCR 696; Supreme Court Employees' 
Welfare Association v. Union of India 19S9 (3) SCR 
4SS : (19S9) 4 SCC 1S7; State of Jammu & Kashmir v. 
A.R. Zakki & Ors.1992 AIR 1546 : 1991 (3) Suppl. 
SCR 216; V.K. Naswa 1( Union of India 2012 (2) SCR 
912 : 2012 (2) SCC 542; Gainda Ram v. MCD 2010 
(12) SCR 996 : 2010 (10) SCC 715; Manoj Narula v. 
Union of India 2014 (9) SCR 965 : 2014 (9) SCC 1 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
199() (2) SCR 41S 
referred to 
Para 7 
19?3 (3) SCR 772 
referred to 
Para 7 
19~5 (3) SCR 676 
referred to 
Paras 
· 19S9 (3) SCR 19 
referred to 
Paras 
2092 (3) SCR 696 
referred to 
Paras 
19~9 (3) SCR 4SS 
referred to 
Paras 
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 216 
referred to 
Paras 
20P (2) SCR 912 
referred to 
Paras 
2010 (12) SCR 996 
referred to 
Paras 
2014 (9) SCR 965 
referred to 
Paras 
· CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1654 of 
2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2016 of the High Court 
ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No. 3572 of2014. 
659 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
J. S. Attri, Sr. Adv. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Chandra Nand Jha, 
G 
Shahid Hussain, Advs. for the Appellant. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. l. Delay condoned. 
2. Leave granted. 
H 
660 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
3. The State ofHimachal Pradesh has called into question certain 
directions that were issued by a Division Bench of the High Court on 23 
September 2016. The High Court called upon the State Government to 
amend the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land 
Reforms Act, 1972 within a period ofninety days. These directions were 
issued by the Division Bench while allowing a writ petition which 
challenged an order dated 23 April 2014 of the revenue authorities. The 
judgment of the High Court by which it set aside the order dated 23 April 
2014, and directed the state to attest the mutation by treating the 
respondent as an agriculturist is not called into question to that extent. 
The /is between the respondent and the state has come to a conclusion 
with the following direction of the High Court:-
"Accordingly, impugned annexure P-9 dated 23 .4.2014 is quashed 
and set aside. Respondents are directed to attest t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.