ADUSUMILLI SURYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by Adusumllll Suryanarayana and two others gives rise to an important and interesting question of law relating to the Interpretation, scope, content and meaning of Art. 252(1) of the Constitution of India and the Impact and effect of resolutions passed thereunder by State Legislatures.

(2.) The petitioners, who own lands within the municipal limits of Gudivada Municipality and agricultural lands In the village of Serivelpur and some other villages in the district of Krishna, pray in this writ petition for the issuance of a writ, order or direction declaring the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Celling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) and the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, as illegal, null and void and unenforceable against them.

(3.) The principal attack of the petitioners as pressed upon us by Sri P.A. Choudary and Sri A. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature is incompetent to make any legislation relating to the imposition of a ceiling on urban immovable properties including lands, and acquisition of such property In excess of ceiling limit, subsequent to April 8, 1972 when the two houses of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature have passed resolutions to the effect that it is desirable for the Parliament to regulate in the State of Andhra- Pradesh by law the imposition of celling on urban immovable properties and acquisition of such properties In excess of the ceiling limit and all matters connected therewith or ancillary and incidental thereto, in support of their claim, the counsel referred to the provisions of Arts. 252, 246 and 254 of the Constitution of India and Lists 1,11 and III of the Seventh Schedu/e thereto. According to the counsel, the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature has surrendered its legislate authority to the Parliament. under the aforesaid resolutions and it is the Parliament alone that can make a law with regard to urban lands so long as the resolutions are effective and in force, and any interpretation to the contrary clothIng the Parliament and the State Legislature with the power to legislate on that matter would amount to adding another subject to the subjects mentioned In the Concurrent List and there is no warrant for such theory.