Sukhdarshan Singh etc. etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.180-183 of 1985
Petitioner: Sukhdarshan Singh etc. etc.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.180-183 of 1985
Judges: E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, CJI, K.N.SINGH & N.M.KASLIWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 21, 1989
Head Note:
RAJASTHAN IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDING ACT, 1973:
Section 15 (as amended) – Contravention of Article 14 – The Constitution Bench in JT 1989 (2) SC 518 declared the Act to be a legislation for Agrarian Reform – Provisions of the Act including section 15 are protected by Article 31 (A) (1) (a) notwithstanding that some of these provisions contravened Article 14 and 19.
(Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, JT 1989 (2) SC 518 – Followed.)
Cases Reffered:
1. Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, JT 1989 (2) SC 518 = 1989 (2) SCC 557 – Followed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. In these appeals the appellants have questioned the validity of Section 15 (as amended) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. it is not disputed that this Act was enacted by the Rajasthan Legislature for bringing about Agrarian Reforms in the State of Rajasthan. The validity of some of the provisions of the Act came up for consideration before this Court in Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan 1989 (2) SCC 557 before a Constitution Bench of this Court and this Court made declaration that the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was a legislation which was made for the purpose of bringing out Agrarian Reforms. In view of the above finding, it is clear that the provisions including s.15(as amended) contained therein are protected by Article 31 (A) (1) (a) of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that some of these provisions contravened Articles 14 and 19.
2. The Grounds urged in respect of the appeal are that Section 15 (as amended) in question was violative of Article 14. Since the provisions of the Act as already stated are protected by Article 31 (A) (1) (a), the attack does not survive. The High Court was therefore right in upholding the validity of Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court. These appeals fail and are dismissed. Interim orders passed if any, in these cases stand vacated.
1. In these appeals the appellants have questioned the validity of Section 15 (as amended) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. it is not disputed that this Act was enacted by the Rajasthan Legislature for bringing about Agrarian Reforms in the State of Rajasthan. The validity of some of the provisions of the Act came up for consideration before this Court in Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan 1989 (2) SCC 557 before a Constitution Bench of this Court and this Court made declaration that the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was a legislation which was made for the purpose of bringing out Agrarian Reforms. In view of the above finding, it is clear that the provisions including s.15(as amended) contained therein are protected by Article 31 (A) (1) (a) of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that some of these provisions contravened Articles 14 and 19.
2. The Grounds urged in respect of the appeal are that Section 15 (as amended) in question was violative of Article 14. Since the provisions of the Act as already stated are protected by Article 31 (A) (1) (a), the attack does not survive. The High Court was therefore right in upholding the validity of Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court. These appeals fail and are dismissed. Interim orders passed if any, in these cases stand vacated.
