1989 (3) TMI 379 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the proceedings for fixation of ceiling area under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, could be initiated and continued after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.
2. Whether the provisions of the old law are saved and survive to govern pending cases.
3. Whether there were any rights "accrued" or obligations "incurred" under the old law to support initiation or continuation of the proceedings after its repeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Continuation of Proceedings Under Repealed Law
The principal controversy was whether proceedings for fixation of ceiling area with reference to the appointed date (1.4.1966) under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, could be initiated and continued after the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, came into force on 1.1.1973. The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the repeal of Chapter III-B did not affect the rights accrued and liabilities incurred under the old law. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view that the old law could be invoked for pending cases.

Issue 2: Survival of Old Law for Pending Cases
The appellants contended that the 1973 Act manifested an intention inconsistent with the continuance of the old law. However, the Supreme Court held that the scheme of the 1973 Act did not manifest an intention contrary to the saving of the repealed provisions of Section 5(6A) and Chapter III-B of the 1955 Act for pending cases. The Court noted that provisions like Section 15(2) and Section 40(1) of the 1973 Act indicated that pending cases were to be governed by the old law.

Issue 3: Accrued Rights and Incurred Liabilities
The appellants argued that no rights had "accrued" in favor of the State nor any liabilities "incurred" by the landholders under the old law. The Supreme Court referred to Section 30E of the 1955 Act, which established the ceiling area and obligations with reference to the notified date (1.4.1966). The Court concluded that the right of the State to take over excess land vested as on the appointed day and was not merely inchoate. The liability to surrender the excess land related back to the appointed day, and thus, the rights accrued and liabilities incurred under the old law were preserved.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, special leave petitions, and the writ petition, upholding the High Court's decision that the old law's provisions were saved for pending cases and that the rights accrued and liabilities incurred under the old law were not effaced. There was no order as to costs.