KRISHNA BHIMRAO DESHPANDE Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these special leave petitions the common question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended in 1974 ('Act' for short) cease to be applicable in all respects to the lands which came within the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Ceiling Act' for short). The lands involved in these matters are covered by the development. plan by the Belgaum City Town Planning authority as per the Master Plan for the said City and they are included and declared as urban agglomeration in the City of Hubli under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. In the year 1972 the Karnataka Legislature passed a resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution to the effect that imposing a ceiling on urban immoveable property and the acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling limit for public purposes and all the matters connected therewith shall be regulated in the State by Parliament by law. The State Legislature thus divested itself of the legislative competence to enact law in respect of subject matter of the resolution. On 1-4-74 the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act was enacted and under the said Act the tenant of the land covered by the Act is entitled to the grant of occupancy rights after making an application under the Act. This Act came into force with effect from 2-4-85. But for the purpose of grant of occupancy rights 1-4-74 was the relevant date. While so in the year 1975 the Governor of Karnataka passed the Urban Aggolmeration Ordinance whereunder all lands between the periphery of 8 Kms. of the municipal limits of Hubli Dharwad were declared as urban agglomeration land. In the year 1976 the Parliament passed the Ceiling Act for imposition of ceiling on urban properties and the Act was made applicable to Karnataka also in view of the resolution passed by the State Government referred to above. The order of the Land Tribunal under the Act conferring occupancy rights on the tenants was challenged before the High Court contending that the lands involved in these cases were within the purview of the Ceiling Act and therefore the provisions of the Land Reforms Act had no application to such lands on the ground that the provisions of the State Act were repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act namely the Ceiling Act. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The owners preferred writ appeals and they were also dismissed by a common judgment in Writ, Appeal Nos. 2707 and 2361/ 85* etc. The Division Bench held that there is no conflict between the two enactments in certain respects i.e. at least so far as the implementation of the provisions of Chapter III of the Act are concerned and that provisions of this Chapter of the Act do not cease to apply to the agricultural lands coming within the meaning of urban agglomeration in the Ceiling Act. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged in S. L. P. (Civil) .No. 16041-42/ 88. Many of the similar writ petitions that were pending before the High Court were transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitions by a common order following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2707/ 85 : (reported in ILR 1988 Kant 2326) and connected matters. Several civil revisions petitions filed by the land owners against the order of the Appellate Tribunal were dismissed by the High Court. Some of the special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court in the said civil revision petitions. Therefore all these special leave petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) It was urged before us that the resolution of the State Legislature passed under Article 252 of the Constitution shifted the topic covered by the resolution from List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution and vested the competence to make the law in respect of the said topic in the, Parliament and that thereafter the State enactment ceased to have efficacy in respect of said topic. Alternatively it was urged that, when in pursuance of the resolution the Parliament legislates in respect of the topic covered by the resolution, the Parliamentary law, repeals or supersedes any existing State legislation on the topic and therefore such law cannot be enforced thereafter.

(3.) We shall first extract some of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and -the respective enactments. Article 246 of the Constitution reads thus: