NIHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Haryana Land Holdings Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated April 27, 1973. By notification dated August 30, 1973, issued by the Governor of Haryana, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act, the Act was brought into force with effect from that date. However, the Haryana Land Holdings Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1973, amended sub-section (3) of section 1 as a result of which the Act came into force on June 16, 1973. The Governor of Haryana, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 13 of the Act, made the rules called the Haryana Land Holdings Tax Rules, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which were published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Legislative Supplement) dated November 13, 1973. The Haryana Land Holdings Tax (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 1 of 1974) added section 5A to the Act, omitted sub-section (2) of section 11 and substituted Schedule 1 to the Act by a new Schedule. Lastly, on August 30, 1974, the Haryana Land Holdings Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance (No. 5 of 1974) was promulgated by the Governor of Haryana which substituted clause (i) of section 2 and section 3 of the Act by new provisions.

(2.) This petition had been filed before the Haryana Ordinance No. 5 of 1974 was promulgated and, therefore, its provisions could not be challenged. It has been heard along with many other similar writ petitions. All the counsel for the writ-petitioners prayed for time to amend their petitions so as to the challenge the provisions made by the Ordinance but we have permitted them to argue the points without formally amending the petitions. The cases have thus been argued at length by the learned counsel for the parties on all the aspects of the Act but no arguments have been addressed so as to invalidity of any rule. All the amendments made by the Ordinances in the Act have been brought into force with effect from June 16, 1973, which is the date on which the Act came into force, and, therefore, all the provisions of the Act, as amended todate, have to be considered as being in force with effect from June 16, 1973.

(3.) Before dealing with the merits of this petition, I may point out that there are 136 petitioners who have filed this joint petition but none of them has given the particular facts of his or her case and the provisions of the Act have been challenged in the abstract without indicating how those provisions affect their rights in their land holdings. The provisions of the Act have been challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on all imaginable and hypothetical grounds, whether they in fact exist or not. In my view, before a petition challenges the vires or the constitutional validity of an Act, it is the duty to state the facts of his own case and to plead how the provisions of the impugned Act affect his fundamental or legal rights so as to enable the Court to pronounce on the validity of those provisions. A person, who is not in any way affected adversely by the provisions of an Act, has no locus standi to challenge them pro bono publico. We have waived this rule and decided to hear all these petitions together so as to facilitate the decision of more than eight hundred writ petitions that have been filed in this Court challenging the vires of the Act but it should not be taken as a precedent for future cases.