2000 (2) TMI 826 - SC - Indian Laws

Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 struck down as beyond powers; blanket transfer ban on tea-subservient land invalid

KUNJ BEHARI LAL BUTAIL Versus STATE OF HP.

The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and struck down as ultra vires the proviso inserted in sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 by the 4.4.86 ... Constitutional validity of amendment in the Rules by notification dated 4.4.86 and the circular order dated 21.8.90 - amendment in the Rules through a notification dated 4.4.86 introduced a proviso restricting the transfer of land subservient to tea plantation - Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Land forming part of tea estate including land sub-servient to tea plantation - HELD THAT:- From the provisions of the Act we cannot spell out any legislative intent delegating expressly, or by necessary implication, the power to enact any prohibition on transfer of land. We are also in agreement with the submission of Shri Anil Divan that by placing complete prohibition on transfer of land subservient to tea estates no purpose sought to be achieved by the Act is advanced so also such prohibition cannot be sustained. Land forming part of tea estate including land sub-servient to tea plantation have been placed beyond the ken of the Act. Such land is not to be taken in account either for calculating area of surplus land or for calculating area of land which a person may retain as falling within ceiling limit. We fail to understand how a restriction on transfer of such land is going to carry out any purpose of the Act. We are fortified in taking such view by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India Ors.,[1980 (11) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT] whereby sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was struck down as invalid insofar as it imposed a restriction on transfer of any urban or urban is able land with a building or a portion only of such building which was within the ceiling area. The provision impugned therein imposed a restriction on transactions by way of sale, mortgage, gift or lease of vacant land or buildings for a period exceeding ten years, or otherwise for a period of ten years from the date of the commencement of the Act even though such vacant land, with or without building thereon, fell within the ceiling limits. The Constitution Bench held (by majority) that such property will be transferable without the constraints mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act. Their Lordships opined that the right to carry on a business guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution carried with it the right not to carry on business. It logically followed, as a necessary corollary, that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(l)(f) carried within it the right not to hold any property. It is difficult to appreciate how could a citizen be compelled to own property against his will though he wanted to alienate it and the land being within the ceiling limits was outside the purview of Section 3 of the Act and that being so the person owning the land was not governed by any of the provisions of the Act. Reverting back to the case at hand, the learned counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh has not been able to satisfy us as to how such a prohibition as is imposed by the impugned amendment in the Rules helps in achieving the object of the Act. Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The proviso inserted into sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 by the notification dated 4.4.1986 (published in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette dated 26.4.86) and the circular order dated 21.8.90 issued by the Registrar, District Kangra at Dharmshala are declared invalid and struck down as ultra vires the powers of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Issues involved: Constitutional validity of amendment in the Rules by notification dated 4.4.86 and the circular order dated 21.8.90.Constitutional Validity of Amendment in the Rules:The case revolved around the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and the subsequent Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973. The amendment in the Rules through a notification dated 4.4.86 introduced a proviso restricting the transfer of land subservient to tea plantation, which was exempted from the Act. The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment, arguing that it exceeded the rule-making power delegated by the Act. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants, stating that the State Government cannot legislate rules that go against what is excluded by the Act itself. The Court emphasized that the Legislature cannot delegate essential legislative functions and that rules must conform to the parent law under which power is delegated.Legislative Delegation and Rule-Making Power:The Court referred to previous cases to highlight the importance of rules conforming to the parent law and falling within the scope of the rule-making power. It was established that rules must align with the provisions of the statute under which they are framed. The judgment emphasized that the rule-making power should not extend to creating substantive rights or obligations not envisaged by the Act. The Court concluded that the amendment imposing a prohibition on the transfer of subservient land, exempted from the Act, did not serve the purpose of the legislation and was therefore invalid.Comparison with Previous Legal Precedents:Drawing parallels with past cases, the Court reiterated that rules must adhere to the legislative intent and cannot introduce restrictions or provisions beyond what the Act allows. The judgment highlighted the need for rules to be within the limits prescribed by the parent Act and not to create additional obligations or constraints. By referencing previous legal decisions, the Court reinforced the principle that delegated legislation must align with the objectives of the enabling statute and not introduce new restrictions or obligations.Final Decision and Outcome:In the final ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The proviso inserted into the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973, by the 1986 notification, and the circular order issued in 1990 were declared invalid and struck down as ultra vires the powers of the Act. The Court concluded that the prohibition on the transfer of subservient land, exempted from the Act, did not advance the purpose of the legislation and therefore could not be sustained. No costs were awarded in this matter.This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues involved, the arguments presented, the Court's analysis, and the final decision rendered by the Supreme Court.