UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus VALLURI BASAVAIAH CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 01-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
0 
802 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
v. 
VALLURI BASAVAIAH CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC. 
May 1, 1979 
[Y. V. OIANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATJ, V. R. KRISHNA lYER, 
V. 0. TULZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950. Art. 252(1)-Term 'legislature' therein 
1neans 
only the House or Houses of Legislature and not the Governor-'An Act of 
Legislature', 'A legislative Act', 'A resolution ,of the House', 'Bill'-Difference 
between. 
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976-Whether ultra vires 
Parlianzent so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned-Inclusion of State 
of Rajasthan in Schedule I of·the Act and categorisation of the urban agglome-
rations of the cities and to1vns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category 'C' and Ajn1er, 
Kata and Bikaner in Category 'D' whether beyond legislative 
con1p•?tcni:c of 
Parlia1nent-Existence of a master plan not li sine qua non for applicability of 
D 
Act to an urban agglomeration. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956. S. 
244( 1) (c) (iii)~Master plan to designate the land subject to con1pul!ory acqui· 
sition. 
The State Legislatures of eleven States, (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, 
Jii111achal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, U.P. and 
West Bengal) considered it desirable to have a uniform legislation enacted by 
Parliament for the imposition of a ceiling on urban property for the country as 
a whole a.nd in compliance with cl. (I) of Art. 252 of the Constitution pas5ed 
a resolution to that effect. 
Parliament accordingly, enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 
Act, 1976. In the first instance, the Act came into force on the date of its intro-
duction in the Lok Sabha i.e. January 28, 1976 and covered the Union Territories 
and the eleven States which had already passed the requisite resolution under 
Art. 252 (I ) of the Constitution, including the State of Andhm Pradesh. Subse-
quently, the Act was adopted, after passing resolutions under Art. 252( 1) of the 
Constitution by the State Legislatures of Assam, Biber, Madhya Pradesh. Mani-
pur, Meghalaya and Rajasthan. The Act is in force in seventeen States and all 
the Union Territories in the country. 
The primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regu-
lation) Act, 1976 was to provide for the imposition of a C'eiling on vacant land 
in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling 
limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters 
connected therewith, 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 bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomera-
tions to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the Directive Principles of 
Articles 39(b) and (c). 
• 
• 
• 
• 
UNION v. V. B. CHAUDHRY 
803 
The legislation faJls under Entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule of th~ 
Constitution which refers to 'Land, that is· to ooy, rights in or over land, etc. 
The State Legislatures alone are competent to enact any legislation rcJating to 
land of every description including lands situate in urban areas. 
The resolutions passed by the State Legislatures, vested in Parliament the 
power to regulate by law, the imposition of a ceiling on urban im1nuvable pro-
perty and acquisition of such property in excess of this ceiling, as well as in res-
pect of 'all matters connected therewith and ancillary or incidental thereto.' 
In writ petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court being of the view 
that the term 'legislature' in Art. 252 ( 1) of the Constitution comprise' both the 
Houses of Legislature, (the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council) 
and the Governor of the State, struck down the Act on the ground that the 
Parliament was not competent to enact the impugned Act for the State of 
Andhra Pradesh inasmuch as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh did not pe.rtici-
pate in the process of authorisation for the passing of the Act by the Parlia-
ment. 
A 
B 
c 
The High Court observed that since two distinct 
terms 
'legislature' and 
'Houses of Legislature' were used in the same article they must, as a matter of 
construction, bear different meanings, and The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regu-
lation) Act 1976 is ultra vires the Parliament so far as the State of Andhra Pra-
D 
desh is concerned. It also held that even assuming the Act is i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.