9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. Definition of 'family' under Section 2(f). 3. Validity of Section 23 regarding the disposal of excess vacant land. 4. Validity of Section 11(6) regarding the maximum amount payable. 5. Validity of Section 27(1) regarding restrictions on transfer of urban property. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: The petitioners challenged the Act's validity, arguing it violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31, and did not further the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) and (c). The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976, which provides certain protections under Articles 31B and 31C. The Court held that the Act, except for specific provisions, was valid and aimed to prevent the concentration of urban land in a few hands and ensure equitable distribution. 2. Definition of 'family' under Section 2(f): The definition of 'family' in Section 2(f) was challenged for being artificial and excluding major children and joint Hindu families. The Court found that the definition, which includes only the individual, spouse, and unmarried minor children, did not necessarily lead to concentration of wealth and was not arbitrary. The Court upheld the definition, stating it was consistent with contemporary urban lifestyles and did not violate Article 14. 3. Validity of Section 23 regarding the disposal of excess vacant land: Section 23 was contested on the grounds that it allowed the State to allot excess land for private purposes, contradicting the public purpose requirement under Article 31(2). The Court found that the wide definition of 'industry' in Section 23(b) and the priorities for land disposal did not align with the Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and (c). The Court struck down subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Section 23 and the opening words of Section 23(4), holding them unconstitutional for permitting acquisition for private purposes. 4. Validity of Section 11(6) regarding the maximum amount payable: Section 11(6), which capped the amount payable for excess land at Rs. 2 lakhs, was challenged as arbitrary and confiscatory. The Court held that the amount was not illusory and the provision was not confiscatory. The amount fixed by the legislature was considered a fair and just recompense, and the Court upheld Section 11(6) as valid. 5. Validity of Section 27(1) regarding restrictions on transfer of urban property: Section 27(1) imposed restrictions on transferring urban property, requiring prior permission from the competent authority. The Court found this provision arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as it conferred uncontrolled power on the authority without guidelines. The restriction on transferring property within the ceiling limits was deemed unreasonable. The Court struck down Section 27(1) to the extent it imposed such restrictions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, except for specific provisions. The definition of 'family' under Section 2(f) and the maximum amount payable under Section 11(6) were upheld. However, subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Section 23, the opening words of Section 23(4), and Section 27(1) were struck down as unconstitutional. The Act was found to align with the Directive Principles of State Policy, except for the invalidated sections.
|
