1980 (5) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether family should be adopted as a unit instead of an individual for applying ceiling on land holdings? What should be the size of the family? Why artificial definition of the family should be adopted? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The object of imposing the condition is obviously to prevent frivolous appeals and revision that impede the implementation of the ceiling policy; secondly, having regard to sub-ss. (8) and (9) it is clear that the cash deposit or bank guarantee is not by way of any exaction but in the nature of securing mesne profits from the person who is ultimately found to be in unlawful possession of the land; thirdly, the deposit or the guarantee is co-related to the land holdings tax (30 times the tax) which, we are informed, varies in the State of Haryana around a paltry amount of Rs. 8/- per acre annually; fourthly, the deposit to be made or bank guarantee to be furnished is confined to the land holdings tax payable in respect of the disputed area i.e. the area or part thereof which is declared surplus after leaving the permissible area to the appellant or petitioner. Having regard to these aspects, particularly the meagre rate of the annual land tax payable, the fetter imposed on the right of appeal/revision, even in the absence of a provision conferring discretion on the appellate/revisional authority to relax or waive the condition, cannot be regarded as onerous or unreasonable. The challenge to s. 18(7) must, therefore, fail.

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
2. Artificial definition of 'family' and its implications.
3. Provisions of permissible area and ceiling.
4. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Validity of specific rules under the Act.
6. Compensation for surplus land.
7. Condition for appeal and revision under Section 18(7).
8. Protection under Articles 31-A, 31-B, and 31-C of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972:
The appellants challenged the vires of certain provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, claiming they were pivotal and thus rendered the entire Act unconstitutional. The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule, providing it protection under Article 31-B. The Supreme Court noted that the foundation of the decision in Saroj Kumari's case, which struck down certain provisions of the Act, had disappeared following the reversal of the Full Bench decision in Sucha Singh's case by the Supreme Court.

2. Artificial Definition of 'Family' and Its Implications:
The principal attack was on the artificial definition of 'family' under Section 3(f), which did not conform to natural families prevalent in the State. The appellants argued that this definition, coupled with the provisions of permissible area under Section 4, led to gross inequalities and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court examined the relevant provisions and found that the artificial definition was justified to prevent evasion of the law through mala fide partitions and transfers.

3. Provisions of Permissible Area and Ceiling:
Section 4 of the Act was scrutinized, which prescribed the permissible area for land holdings. The Court noted that the permissible area increased with each additional family member or separate unit, but not beyond twice the permissible area of the primary unit. The Court found the provisions to be consistent with the legislative intent and not discriminatory.

4. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The appellants contended that the Act's provisions resulted in discrimination, particularly against unmarried daughters and wives, and thus violated Article 14. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the artificial definition of family and the double standard for fixing the ceiling were justified based on the social and economic realities of rural life. The Court suggested that the State consider provisions for unmarried major daughters and divorced daughters living with the family.

5. Validity of Specific Rules under the Act:
The appellants challenged Rule 5(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973, arguing it was an instance of excessive delegation and went beyond the scope of Section 4(1). The Court found that the Rules provided a basis for evaluating land holdings and were consistent with the Act's provisions. The Court rejected the contention that the Rules were ultra vires.

6. Compensation for Surplus Land:
The appellants argued that the compensation specified under Section 16 for surplus land was illusory. The Court found that the compensation rates were based on the actual quality of the soil and its yield and were not illusory. No materials were presented to suggest otherwise.

7. Condition for Appeal and Revision under Section 18(7):
The appellants challenged the condition under Section 18(7) requiring a deposit or bank guarantee for appeals and revisions, arguing it was unreasonably onerous. The Court held that the condition was not unreasonable or onerous, given the meager rate of annual land tax and the objective of preventing frivolous appeals. The Court upheld the provision.

8. Protection under Articles 31-A, 31-B, and 31-C of the Constitution:
The Court noted that the Principal Act and its amendments fell within Article 31-A, providing immunity from attacks based on Articles 14, 19, and 31. The constitutional validity of Articles 31-A and 31-C had been upheld in previous decisions. The Court found that the Act, being an agrarian reform legislation, was protected under Article 31-B and did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all the civil appeals, writ petitions, and petitions for special leave, upholding the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and its amendments. The Court found no violation of constitutional provisions and suggested the State consider additional provisions for unmarried major daughters and divorced daughters living with the family.

← Previous Next →