LAWS(MPH)-1978-11-6

RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On November 17, 1978
RAJENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 40, 120, 170, 171 and 172, all of 1977. The petitioners in all these petitions are owners of urban land in the city of Indore. The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of 1976) in its application to Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners also submit that even if the Act be valid, it has not been brought into force in Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) The preamble of the Act shows that the Act was passed to provide for the Imposition of a celling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good. The legislative competence for passing the Act was derived by Parliament under Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution in pursuance of resolutions passed by the Legislatures of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal that the matters aforesaid be regulated in those States by Parliament by law. Section 1 (2) of the Act provides that it applies in the first instance to the whole of the States which passed the resolutions under Article 252 (1) prior to its enactment and to all the Union territories. Section 1 (2) further provides that it shall also apply to such other States which adopt the Act by resolution passed in that behalf under Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution. aS provided in Section 1 (3), the Act came into force at once in the States which passed the resolution under Clause (1) of Article 252 before its enactment and in the Union territories. As regards other States, Section 1 (3) provides that the Act shall come into force in any other State which adopts the Act under Clause (1) of Article 252, on the date of such adoption.

(3.) The point relating to constitutional validity of the Act was not initially raised in these petitions. At the time of argument, however, the petitioners made applications for urging the point of constitutional validity of the Act in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, and we heard full arguments en that point. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this respect is that by the resolutions passed, before enactment of the Act, by the various States mentioned above, Parliament derived power to legislate for those States and that as the Legislature ol the State of Madhya Pradesh had not passed any such resolution, Parliament had no legislative competence to legislate for the State of Madhya Pradesh. In this context, the learned counsel referred to us item 8 of Schedule I to the Act which relates to Madhya Pradesh. Item 8 of the Schedule, read with Section 2 (n) of the Act, demarcates the limits of urban agglomerations in respect of various cities and towns in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Schedule also specifies the categories to which the different urban agglomerations belong. The Schedule has relevance in the applicability of Section 4 which determines the ceiling limit, Section 11 which determines the compensation and Section 29 which regulates the construction of buildings within urban agglomerations. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the legislative competence of Parliament was limited only to those States which had passed the resolutions under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution before enactment of the Act and the provisions enacted in the Act, with specific reference to Madhya Pradesh, were beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, We are unable to accept this argument,