KARKAL BALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven petitions, in which the validity of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Mysore Act 10 of 1962 as amended by the Mysore Act 14 of 1965), and the Rules framed thereunder is challenged, are heard together. In addition to the declaration that the aforesaid Act and Rules are ultra vires, void and of no effect, they have also sought for an alternative relief for a declaration that the petitioners' holdings which are Ryotwari are governed by S.107 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Land Reforms Act), and thus the provisions of the Land- Reforms Act do not apply to them.

(2.) In the first six petitions above mentioned, the facts are identical In WP. Nos.1180 and 3945 of 1968, in addition to the questions raised in the other petitions, a declaration is sought that the petitioners therein are entitled to the exemption provided under S.107 of the Land Reforms Act as they are tenants of a Religious and Charitable Institution which is under the control of the State Government, the effect of which is that the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not apply to them. The petitioners have also sought for reliefs by way of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent-the State of Mysore from enforcing the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The averments made in the affidavit accompanying the petitions are mostly identical, excepting that the lands concerned in WP.No.159 of 1968 are situated in Shimoga District, while the lands concerned in the other petitions are all situate in South Kanara and they all are said to be ryotwari lands. The object of the Land Reforms Act, 1961, as gathered from its premable is to confer ownership on tenants, impose ceilings on land holdings and for some other matters more specifically referred to in the body of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Reforms Act amongst other reforms provides for resumption of lands and also for fixation of rent and ceilings. After referring to several provisions of the Land Reforms Act, it is stated that several basic provisions of the Land Reforms Act are so vague and ambiguous that it is impossible for the citizen to comply with them. Such a statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague as this Land Reforms Act that men of common intelligence are to guess their meaning and differ in regard to their application, violates the essentials of law. In view of the fact that the terms of the enactment are vague and ambiguous, it amounts to abdication of the legislative fuactions of the legislature and amounts to excessive delegation in regard to such functions to the executive or statutory authorities, and therefore, the Act is void for excessive delegation.