https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169426 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. en-us Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2025 11:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169426 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169426