1989 (8) TMI 362 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11-A, Section 11-B, and Section 42-A of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1989.
2. Validity of amendments to Sections 41, 42, and 46 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, by the Amending Act.
3. Encroachment on judicial power by the legislature.
4. Violation of the Rule of Law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11-A, Section 11-B, and Section 42-A of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1989:
The petitioners challenged the validity of these provisions, arguing that they make a direct inroad into the judicial powers of the State and are violative of the Rule of Law, which is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution. Sub-section (2) of Section 11-A empowers the competent authority to dispose of cases under the Act, notwithstanding any stay granted or other process issued by the Civil Court. Similarly, Section 42-A states that any stay granted by the appellate authority before 1st November 1988 shall stand vacated on that date. The Court held that these provisions enable the competent authority to flout orders passed by a Civil Court or an appellate or revisional authority in exercise of judicial power, which is not permissible. These provisions were deemed to be an encroachment on judicial power and violative of the Rule of Law, thus deserving to be struck down.

2. Validity of amendments to Sections 41, 42, and 46 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, by the Amending Act:
The proviso added to Sections 41 and 42 states that surplus land vested in the State Government shall not revert to the holder thereof as a consequence of remand of the case. The Court found that these provisions modify an order or decision given by a Court or a Tribunal in exercise of judicial power, thus encroaching on judicial power. The amendments to these sections were also struck down for being violative of the Rule of Law. However, the substitution of Section 46, which removes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide matters under the Act, was upheld as valid. The Court found no cogent reason to declare this provision invalid.

3. Encroachment on judicial power by the legislature:
The Court emphasized that the legislative power is to make, alter, amend, or repeal laws, while judicial power is to ascertain, construe, and determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The legislature cannot directly overrule or set aside judicial decisions by a mere declaration. The impugned provisions were found to be an exercise of judicial power by the legislature, which is not permissible under the constitutional scheme.

4. Violation of the Rule of Law:
The Court reiterated that the Rule of Law is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution. The impugned provisions, by making judicial orders ineffective and modifying judicial decisions without changing their basis, were found to be violative of the Rule of Law. Consequently, these provisions were declared void and unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
The petitions were partly allowed. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11-A, Section 11-B, the proviso to Sections 41 and 42, and Section 42-A of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1989, were declared void and unconstitutional. Section 46, as amended, was upheld as valid. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs, and any security amount deposited was to be refunded to the petitioners.

← Previous Next →