Delegated legislation cannot bar transfer of land excluded from the parent Act; the proviso and circular were invalid.

The SC held that the proviso inserted into Rule 3(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973, and the consequential circular refusing registration of sale deeds for land exempt from the ceiling law, were beyond delegated power. Section 5(g) excluded tea estates and their subservient land from the Act's operative field, so Section 26 could not be used to create a new transfer embargo on property expressly outside the statute. Because delegated legislation must remain within the parent Act and cannot add a substantive disability not contemplated by it, the proviso and circular were ultra vires and invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso inserted into Rule 3(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 and the consequential circular directing refusal to register sale deeds of land exempt from the Act were valid, and whether the delegated rule-making power under Section 26 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 extended to imposing a prohibition on transfer of land expressly excluded from the Act.

Analysis: Section 5(g) of the Act excluded tea estates from the operation of the ceiling law, and the definition of tea estate, read with Rule 3, treated subservient land as part of the exempted category. The impugned proviso, however, imposed an embargo on transfer of land subservient to tea plantation even though such land was outside the Act's operative field. The delegated power under Section 26 was limited to making rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and could not be used to create a substantive restriction not contemplated by the parent statute. A delegated rule must conform to the statute and remain within the scope of the authority conferred. Since the restriction on transfer of exempt land did not further any object of the Act and created a new disability, it exceeded the rule-making power. The circular, being founded on the same invalid premise, could not survive independently.

Conclusion: The proviso to Rule 3(1) and the circular dated 21.8.1990 were ultra vires the parent Act and invalid, and the challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under a general power to carry out the purposes of an Act cannot impose a substantive prohibition or disability in relation to property expressly excluded from the Act, because delegated legislation must remain within the limits of the parent statute.

---