# 13 (ADDL) S.C.R. 636 K.l PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

- **Citation:** [2011] 13 S.C.R. 636
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-08-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2003
- **Bench:** S.H. Kapadia Cji, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, K.S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar, Anil R. Dave
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-addl-s-c-r-636-k-l-plantation-pvt-ltd-anr-v-state-of-karnataka-27329
- **Pages:** 103

## Headnote

C
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - ss.110 and 140 -
ExemiJtion provisions - Exemption under s. 107 for lands
used for cultivation of Linaloe - Power to withdraw the
exemption uls. 110 -
Constitutional validity of s. 110 -
Withdrawal of exemption vide notification dated 08. 03. 1994
D issued under s. 110 - Notification in question not laid before
the Legislature - Validity of the Notification - Held: Power to
withdraw exemption has not been conferred on the State
Government, but evidently retained by the Legislature - The
Legislature's apathy in granting is discernible from the
E
language used in sub-section (2) of s.107, which says that no
person shall after the commencement of the Amendment Act
acquire in any manner for the cultivation of Linaloe, land of
an extent which together with the land cultivated by Linaloe,
if any, already held by him exceeds ten units - Legislature,
F
therefore, as matter of policy, wanted to give only a conditional
exemption for lands used for Linaloe cultivation and the policy
was to empower the State Government to withdraw the same
especially when the law is that no person can claim exemption
as a matter of right - The legislative will was to make s. 107
subject to s. 110 and not the will of the delegate, hence,
G overriding effect has to be given to s. 110 - The contention
that s. 110 is void due to excessive delegation of legislative
powers, is not acceptable - Further, the Act including s. 110
was placed in IXth Schedule in the year 1965 and, hence,
H
636
K.T. PLANTATION PVT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
637
KARNATAKA
immune from challenge in a court of law - Land used for A
linaloe cultivation would be governed by the provisions of the
Act which is protected under Article 31 B of the Constitution
having been included in the IXth Schedule - The appellantcompany could not have held the land used for the cultivation
of Linaloe on the date of the commencement of the Act -
B
Further on withdrawal of exemption vide notification dated
08.03.94 the appellant-company became disentitled to hold
the land - Non-laying of the notification dt. 8. 3. 94 under s. 140
of the Act before the State Legislature was a curable defect
and did not affect the validity of the notification or action taken c
thereunder - No force in the contention that opportunity of
hearing is a pre-condition for exercising powers under s. 11 O
of the Act - No such requirement has been provided under
s.107 or s.110 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 318 -
Administrative Law - Delegated legislation.
The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate
(Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 - Constitutional validity of
D
- Plea of repugnancy between the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act- Tenability of -
E
Held: Plea is not acceptable -
Under Article 254 of the
Constitution, a State law passed in respect of a subject matter
comprised in List Ill would be invalid if its provisions are
repugnant to a law passed on the same subject by Parliament
and that too only if both the laws cannot exist together - If the
F
dominant intention of two legislations is different, they cover
different subject matter then merely because the two
legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects, they do
not cover the same field -
The Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, primarily
G
falls under Entry 18 List JI, since the dominant intention of the
legislature was to preserve and protect Roerichs' Estate
covered by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, on the State Government withdrawing the exemption in
respect of the land used for linaloe cultivation - The said
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A Acquisition Act. though primarily falls under Entry 18 List JI
incidentally also deals with the acquisition of paintings,
artefacts and other valuable belongings of Roerichs' and,
hence, the Act partly falls under Entry 42 L

## Text

_Characters 0–39,981 of 203,037. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39981 for what follows._

A
B
[2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R. 636
K.l PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2003)
AUGUST 9, 2011
[S.H. KAPADIA CJI, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, K.S.
RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR AND ANIL R.
DAVE, JJ.)
C
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - ss.110 and 140 -
ExemiJtion provisions - Exemption under s. 107 for lands
used for cultivation of Linaloe - Power to withdraw the
exemption uls. 110 -
Constitutional validity of s. 110 -
Withdrawal of exemption vide notification dated 08. 03. 1994
D issued under s. 110 - Notification in question not laid before
the Legislature - Validity of the Notification - Held: Power to
withdraw exemption has not been conferred on the State
Government, but evidently retained by the Legislature - The
Legislature's apathy in granting is discernible from the
E
language used in sub-section (2) of s.107, which says that no
person shall after the commencement of the Amendment Act
acquire in any manner for the cultivation of Linaloe, land of
an extent which together with the land cultivated by Linaloe,
if any, already held by him exceeds ten units - Legislature,
F
therefore, as matter of policy, wanted to give only a conditional
exemption for lands used for Linaloe cultivation and the policy
was to empower the State Government to withdraw the same
especially when the law is that no person can claim exemption
as a matter of right - The legislative will was to make s. 107
subject to s. 110 and not the will of the delegate, hence,
G overriding effect has to be given to s. 110 - The contention
that s. 110 is void due to excessive delegation of legislative
powers, is not acceptable - Further, the Act including s. 110
was placed in IXth Schedule in the year 1965 and, hence,
H
636
K.T. PLANTATION PVT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
637
KARNATAKA
immune from challenge in a court of law - Land used for A
linaloe cultivation would be governed by the provisions of the
Act which is protected under Article 31 B of the Constitution
having been included in the IXth Schedule - The appellantcompany could not have held the land used for the cultivation
of Linaloe on the date of the commencement of the Act -
B
Further on withdrawal of exemption vide notification dated
08.03.94 the appellant-company became disentitled to hold
the land - Non-laying of the notification dt. 8. 3. 94 under s. 140
of the Act before the State Legislature was a curable defect
and did not affect the validity of the notification or action taken c
thereunder - No force in the contention that opportunity of
hearing is a pre-condition for exercising powers under s. 11 O
of the Act - No such requirement has been provided under
s.107 or s.110 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 318 -
Administrative Law - Delegated legislation.
The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate
(Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 - Constitutional validity of
D
- Plea of repugnancy between the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act- Tenability of -
E
Held: Plea is not acceptable -
Under Article 254 of the
Constitution, a State law passed in respect of a subject matter
comprised in List Ill would be invalid if its provisions are
repugnant to a law passed on the same subject by Parliament
and that too only if both the laws cannot exist together - If the
F
dominant intention of two legislations is different, they cover
different subject matter then merely because the two
legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects, they do
not cover the same field -
The Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, primarily
G
falls under Entry 18 List JI, since the dominant intention of the
legislature was to preserve and protect Roerichs' Estate
covered by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, on the State Government withdrawing the exemption in
respect of the land used for linaloe cultivation - The said
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A Acquisition Act. though primarily falls under Entry 18 List JI
incidentally also deals with the acquisition of paintings,
artefacts and other valuable belongings of Roerichs' and,
hence, the Act partly falls under Entry 42 List Ill as well -
Since the dominant purpose of the Act was to preserve and
B protect Roerichs' Estate as part of agrarian reforms, the
inclusion of ancillary measures would not throw the Jaw out of
the protection of Article 31A(1)(a) - On the other hand, the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an Act which fell exclusively
under Entry 42 List Ill and enacted for the purpose of
c acquisition of land needed for public purposes for companies
and for determining the amount of compensation to be made
on account of such acquisition, which is substantially and
materially different from the Acquisition Act whose dominant
purpose is to preserve and protect "estate" governed by
0 Art.31A(a) read with Art.31A(2)(a)(iii) of the Constitution -
Therefore, no assent of the President was required under
Article 254(2) of the Constitution to sustain the impugned
Acquisition Act, which falls under Article 31 A(1 )(a) of the
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 31A and
E 254(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 300A - Exercise of the
power of eminent domain - Scope - Held: Article 300A
proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save
by authority of Jaw, meaning thereby that a person cannot be
F deprived of his property merely by an executive fiat, without
any specific legal authority or without the support of Jaw made
by a competent legislature - Principles of eminent domain,
as such, is not seen incorporated in Article 300A - Doctrines
- Doctrine of Eminent Domain.
G
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.300A - Requirement of,
public purpose for depriving a person of his property - :
Payment of compensation to a person who is deprived of his
property - Held: Deprivation of property within the meaning
K of Art. 300A, generally speaking, must take place for public
K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR v. STATE OF
639
KARNATAKA
purpose 01 public interest - Any law, which deprives a person A
of his private property for private interest. will be unlawful and
unfair and undermines the rule of law and can be subjected
to judicial review - Public purpose is a pre-condition for
deprivation of a person from his property under Article. 300A
and the right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in that B
Article and when a person is deprived of his property the State
has to justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme
of the statute, legislative policy, object and purpose of the
legislature and other related factors - Article 300A does not
prohibit the payment of just compensation when a person is c
deprived of his property - Requirement of public purpose, for
deprivation of a person of his property under Article 300A, is
a pre-condition, but no compensation or nil compensation or
its illusiveness has to be justified by the State on judicially
justiciable standards.
Interpretation of Statute - Statute depriving a person of
his property - Scope for judicial review - Held: Statutes are
many which though deprives a person of his properly, have
D
the protection of Arlicle 30(1A), Article 31A, 318, 31C and
hence immune from challenge under Arlicle 19 or Article 14 E
- On deletion of Article 19(1)(f), the available grounds of
challenge are Arlicle 14, the basic structure and the rule of
law, apart from the ground of legislative competence -
Though the Impugned Act was not included in the IXth
Schedule but since the Act was protected by Article 31A, it F
was immune from challenge on the ground of violation of
Arlicle 14 - Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles 14 and 31A
- The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition
& Transfer) Act, 1996.
Rule of law - Held: Rule of law as a concept finds no
place in Indian Constitution, but has been characterized as a
basic feature of Indian Constitution which cannot be abrogated
or destroyed even by the Parliament and in fact binds the
Parliament - Rule of law as an overarching principle can be
G
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R
A
applied by the constitutional courts
111 rarest of rare cases,
and can undo laws which are tyrannical, violate the basic
structure of the Indian Constitution, and the cherished norms
of law and justice
8
Dr. Svetoslav Roerich, a Russia born internationally
acclaimed painter and artist, and his wife Mrs. Devika
Rani Roerich owned an Estate in Bangalore covering
470.19 acres, out of which 100 acres were granted to
them by the State Government of Karnataka in the year
1954 for Linaloe cultivation. When the Karnataka Land
C Reforms Act, 1961 came into force, they filed
declarations under Section 66 of the Act before the Land
Tribunal stating that they had no surplus lands to
surrender to the State since the entire area held by them
had been used for the cultivation of Linaloe which was
D exempted under Section 107(1)(vi) of the Land Reforms
Act. Consequently, the Land Tribunal vide order dated
15.03.82 dropped the proceedings .instituted under the
Act against them holding that the land used for cultivation
of Linaloe did not attract the provisions of the Land
E Reforms Act.
Dr. Roerich and Mrs. Devika Rani had no issue and
allegedly some persons associated with the couple, who
had an eye on their properties, including the land used
F for linaloe cultivation, valuable paintings, jewellery,
artefacts etc., began to create documents to grab those
properties. The Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka
noticing the above facts and circumstances convened a
meeting in the presence of the Director of Archaeology
to take effective and proper steps to preserve the
G paintings, artefacts and other valuables. For that purpose,
they met Smt. Devika Rani and Dr. Roerich and a letter
was handed over to Dr. Roerich on behalf of the State
Government expressing the Government's willingness to
purchase the paintings and other valuables so as to set
H
K.T. PLANTATION PVT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
641
KARNATAKA
up a Roerich Gallery. The State Cabinet also discussed A
about the desirability of acquiring the landed properties
of Roerichs and also for setting up an Art Gallery-cumMuseum, in public interest. Initially the State issued an
ordinance, namely, the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich
Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Ordinance 1992, which B
was sent for the approval of the President of India. In the
meanwhile Roerich couple passed away and the
ordinance was returned to make-sufficient amendments.
After necessary amendments ordinance of 1995 was
issued. The ordinance was returned by the Government c I
of India informing that it had no objection to introduce
legislation as a bill and hence the same with requisite
amendments was placed before the Legislative Assembly
and the Legislative Council. The Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 was 0
then passed and subsequently got the assent of the
President on 15.11.96 and was brought into force on
21.11.1996.
Meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner of the District
had reported that Roerichs had owned 470.19 acres of E
land, out of which they had raised Linaloe cultivation to
the extent of 356.15 acres and the remaining extent of
114.04 acres was agricultural land; that as per the ceiling
provisions of the Land Reforms Act they were entitled to
hold an extent of 54 acres of agricultural land and as . F
such, the excess of 60.04 acres ought to have been
surrendered by them to the Government. The view of the
Law Department was sought for in that respect and the
Law Department stated that the earlier order dated
15.03.82 of the Land Tribunal be re-opened and action G
under Section 67(1) be initiated for resumption of the
excess land. The Deputy Commissioner was requested
to issue suitable instructions to the Tahsildar to place the
matter before the Land Tribunal, for review of the earlier
order dated 15.03.82 by invoking the provisions of H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) SC R
A
Section 122A of the Land Reforms Act. The Deputy
Commissioner had further reported that Dr. Roerich had
sold an extent of 137.33 acres of land on 23.3.1991 to the
first appellant-company 'KTP'; but request for mutation
in respect of those lands had been declined by the local
B officers and the lands stood in the name of late Dr.
Roerich in the Record of Rights.
The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department taking note of the said facts sought
the legal opinion of the Department of Law and
C Parliamentary Affairs as to whether valuable lands held
by the late Roerichs could be resumed by the State
before lands changed hands, by withdrawing the
exemption given to the lands used for Linaloe cultivation.
The Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs opined
D that the exemption given under Section 107 of the Land
Reforms Act, 1961 can be withdrawn by the Government
by issuing a notification as per Section 110 of the Land
Reforms Act and consequently tht. Commissioner a_nd
Secretary to the government proposed to issue a
E notification to that effect for which approval of the
Cabinet was sought for. The Cabinet accorded sanction
in its meeting and the State Government issued
notification Notification No. RD 217 LRA 93 dated 8th
March, 1994 in exercise of powers conferred by Section
F · 110 of the Land Reforms Act, withdrawing the exemption
granted for the lands used for cultivation of Linaloe under
clause (vi) of Sub-section 1 of Section 107 of the Act.
Notification was published in the Government Gazette on
11.03.1994.
G
H
The Assistant Commissioner thereafter issued a
notice to the first appellant-company 'KTP' to show cause
why 137 .33 acres of land be not forfeited to the
Government.
KT PLANTATION PVT LTD. & ANR v STATE OF
643
KARNATAKA
The first appellant-company, through its Managing A
Director, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court
challenging the constitutional validity of the Roerich and
Devika Rani Roerich (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996,
Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the
notification dated 08.03.1994 issued thereunder and also B
sought other consequential reliefs. The writ petition was
dismissed by the High Court upholding the validity of the
Acquisition Act as well as Section 110 of the Land
Reforms Act and the notification issued thereunder
except in relation to the inclusion of certain members in c
the Board of Directors constituted undet the Acquisition
Act.
Aggrieved, the first appellant-company inter alia
raised the following contentions before this Court under
three major heads:-
D
(a) Legal validity of Section 110 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961, the Notification No. RD 217 LRA 93
dated 8th March, 1994 issued by the State Government
thereunder:
E
It was contended that the first appellant-Company
had purchased the lands from Roerich couple when those
lands stood exempted from the provisions of the Land
Reforms Act by virtue of Section 107(1)(vi) of the Land
F
Reforms Act; that the State Government could not, in
exercise of its powers under Section 110 of the Act, issue
notification dated 08.03.94 to withdraw the exemption
granted by the Legislature which was essentially a
legislative policy; that Section 110 gives unfettered and
unguided power to the Executive to take away the G
exemption granted by the Legislature and hence that
Section is void for excessive delegation of legislative
powers on the State Government; that the respondent
State did not follow the procedure laid down ·in Seation
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A
140 of the Act; that laying of notification under Section
140 is not a mere laying but is coupled with a negative/
affirmative resolution of the Legislature; the failure to lay
the notification is an illegality which cannot be cured; that
though the Land Reforms Act was placed in the 9th
B Schedule which saves its provisions from the challenge
of Articles 14, 19 and 31, a challenge to a provision of the
Act for excessive delegation of legislative power is still
available and the Land Reforms Act cannot be protected
by Article 318.
c (b) Constitutional validity of Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996:
It was contended that the Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 does
D not contain any provision for protection of agrarian
reforms and hence not protected by the provisions of
Article 31A and hence not saved from challenges on the
ground of violation of Artic: 0 s 14 and 19 of the
Constitution; that management and protection of land
E used for linaloe cultivation and the preservation of
artefacts, paintings etc. are not part of agrarian reforms;
that the said Act, a State Legislation, is ex-facie repugnant
to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a Central
Legislation and hence void under Article 254(1) due to
F want of Presidential assent; and that the procedure and
the principle for the acquisition of land as well as
determination of compensation, etc., under both the Acts
are contrary to each other and hence the said Act can be
saved only if Presidential assent is obtained under Article
G 254(2) of the constitution.
H
(c) Claim for enhanced compensation and scope and
content of Article 300A of the Constitution:
It was. contended that the Roerich and Devika Rani
K.T. PLANTATION PVT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF 645
KARNATAKA
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 does A
not provide for any principle or guidelines for the fixation
of the compensation amount and the amount fixed is
illt. .ory, compared to the value of the property taken away
from the first appellant-company in exercise of the
powers of eminent domain; that the inherent powers of B
public purpose and eminent domain are embodied in
Article 300A, and Entry 42 List Ill, "Acquisition and
Requisitioning of Property" which necessarily connotes
that the acquisition and requisitioning of property will be
for a public use and for compensation, as it is the c
legislative head for eminent domain; that the twin
requirements of public purpose and compensation
though seen omitted from Article 300A, but when a
person is deprived of his property, those limitations are
implied in Article 300A as well as Entry 42 List Ill and a D
Constitutional Court can always examine the validity of
the statute on those grounds; and that the action
depriving a person of just and fair compensation is also
amenable to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution, which is the quintessence of the rule of
law, otherwise the Constitution would be conferring
E
arbitrary and unbridled powers on the Legislature, to
deprive a person of his property.
One 'M' too had filed a writ petition before the High
Court claiming rights over some of the articles belonging
F
to Roerichs' couple on the strength of a will. The writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that the
articles claimed by the company 'KTP' stood vested in the
State in view of the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich
(Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996. Against that G
judgment, 'M' filed a separate appeal before this Court.
'M' and others had also challenged the constitutional
validity of the said Acquisition Act by filing Writ Petitions ·
before the High Court, which too wer~ dismissed.
I
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) SC R.
A Aggrieved by the same, they filed another set of civil
Appeals before this Court.
The following questions therefore came up for
consideration before th.is Court:
B
(1) Whether Section 11 O of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Land
Reforms amendment Act, 1973, (Act 1 of 1974), which
came into effect from 01.03.197 4, read with Section 79 B
of the said Act, introduced by amending Act 1 of 1974,
C violates the basic structure of the Constitution, in so far
as it confers power on the Executive Government, a
delegatee of the Legislature, of withdrawal of exemption
of Linaloe plantation, without hearing and without
reasons;
D
(2) Whether the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich
(Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 is constitutionally
valid;
(3) Whether on true interpretation of Article 300A of
E the Constitution, the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich
(Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, is violative of the
said Article in so far as no specific compensation
prescribed for the acquisition of land for Linaloe
plantation, and, after deduction of liabilities and payment
F
of compensation for the artefacts, no balance may and/
or is likely to exist for payment of such compensation, as
a result of which, whether the Act really is expropriatory
in nature;
G
(4) Whether on true interpretation of Article 300A of
the Constitution, the said Act is violative of Article 300A
as the said Article is not, by itself, a source of Legislative
power, but such power of the State Legislature being
traceable only to Entry 42 of List Ill of Schedule VII to the
H
K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
64 7
KARNATAKA
Constitution viz., "Acquisition and Requisition of A
Property", which topic excludes expropriation and
confiscation of property and
(5) If Article 300A of the Constitution is construed as
providing for deprivation of property without any 8
compensation at all, or illusory compensation, and hence
providing for expropriation and confiscation of property,
whether the said Article would violate the rule of law and
would be an arbitrary and unconscionable violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution, thus violating the basic C
structure of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
D
Validity of Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 and of the notification dated 8.3.1994 issued by the
State Government thereunder
1.1. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was
enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature to have a E
uniform law relating to land reforms in the State of
Karnataka, relating to agrarian relations, conferment of
ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings etc.
Section 798(1) of the Land Reforms Act prohibits holding
of agricultural land by certain persons which says that F
with effect on and from the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act (Act 1/74) w.e.f. 1.3.1974, no person other
than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled
to hold land; and that it shall not be lawful for, a company
inter a/ia to hold 'any land'. The first appellant being a G
company was prohibited from holding any agricultural
land after the commencement of the Act. If the company
was holding any land with Linaloe cultivation on the date
of the commencement of the Act, the same would have
vested in the State Government under Section 798(3) of H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A the Act and an amount as specified in Section 72 would
have been paid. [Paras 28, 30, 31] [685-F-G; 686-B-C; 687B-C]
1.2. Chapter VIII of the Land Reforms Act deals with
8 exemption provisions. The power to withdraw the
exemption in respect of the plantations, has not been
conferred on the State Government, but evidently
retained by the Legislature. Legislative policy is clearly
discernible from the provision of the Statute itself, that,
whenever the Legislature wanted to confer the power to
C withdraw the exemption to the State Government it has
done so, otherwise it has retained the power to itself.
[Para 38] [690-F-H]
1.3. Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act empowers
D the State Government to withdraw the exemption granted
to any land referred to in Sections 107 and 108. Section
107 itself has been made "subject to" Section 110 of the
Act. The words 'subject to' conveys the idea of a
provision yielding place to another provision or other
E provisions to which it is made subject. Since Section 107
is made subject to Section 110, the former section
conveys the idea of yielding to the provision to which it
is made subject that is Section 110 which is the will of
legislature. [Para 39] [691-A-B-D]
F
1.4. The Legislature's apathy in granting exemption
for lands used for cultivation of Linaloe is discernible from
the language used in sub-section (2) of Section 107,
which says that no person shall after the commencement
of the Amendment Act acquire in any manner for the
G cultivation of Linaloe, land of an extent which together
with the land cultivated by Linaloe, if any, already held by
him exceeds ten units. Legislature, therefore, as matter
of policy, wanted to give only a conditional exemption for
lands used for Linaloe cultivation and the policy was to
H empower the State Government to withdraw the same
K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
649
KARNATAKA
especially when the law is that no person can claim
A
exemption as a matter of right. The legislative will was to
make Section 107 subject to Section 110 and not the will
of the delegate, hence, overriding effect has to be given
to Section 110. Further, the Land Reforms Act including
Section 110 was placed in IXth Schedule in the year 1965
B
and, hence, immune from challenge in a court of law.
[Para 40] [691-H; 692-A-C]
1.5. Dr. Roerich and Mrs. Devika had got only the
conditional exemption from the provisions of the Land
C
Reforms Act for the lands used for Linaloe cultivation
and, hence, they also would have lost ownershi.p and
possession of the lands once the exemption had been
withdrawn and the land would have vested in the State.
The land was purchased by the Company with that
statutory condition from Roerichs and, hence, was bound
D
by that condition. The contention that Section 110 is void
due to excessive delegation of legislative powers, is
rejected. [Para 41) [692-D-E]
1.6. The State Government issued the notification
E
dated 8.3.1994 in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act which was
published in the official gazette on 11.3.94. 1.9. The facts
would indicate that, in the instant case, the notification
has not been laid before the Legislature, but looking at
F
the language of Section 140 of the Act, it has not affected
the validity or the effect of the notification. [Paras 44, 47]
[693-C; 694-B-C]
1.7. Following is the procedure generally followed
when an order or notification is laid before the
G
Legislature:-
(1)
Laying which requires no further procedure;
(2)
Laying allied with the affirmative procedure; and
H
•
...
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL ) S .C.R.
A
(3)
Laying allied with negative procedure.
The object of requirement of laying provided in
enabling Acts is to subject th'e subordinate law making
authority to the vigilance and control of the Legislature.
B The degree of control the Legislature wants can be
noticed on the language used in such laying clause. [Para
46] [693-F-H; 694-A]
1.8. Section 140 of the Act does not require the State
Legislature to give its approval for bringing into effect the
C notification, but a positive act by the Legislature has been
contemplated in Section 140 to make the notification
effective, that does not mean that failure to lay the
notification has affected the legal validity, its effect or the
action taken precedent to that notification. Non-laying of
D the notification dated 08.03.1994 before the State
Legislature has not affected its validity or the action taken
precedent to that notificatior •. This Court now, vide its'
order dated 24.02.2011, has directed the State
Government to place the notification before both the
E Houses of the State Legislature. Therefore, the defect, if
any, of not placing the notification has been cured. [Para
50] [695-H; 696-A-C]
1.9. Section 80 of the Land Reforms Act prohibits
transfer of any land to non-agriculturalist. Section
F 80(1 )(iv), states that it shall not be lawful to sell, gift,
exchange or lease of any land, in favour of a person, who
is disentitled under Section 79·8, to acquire or hold any
land. The expression "land" has been defined under
Section 2(18) which is all comprehensive and takes in
G agricultural lands, that is land which is used or capable
of being used for agriculture, but for the exemption
granted under Section 107(1)(vi) lands used for the
cultivation of linaloe would have fallen under Section
2(18). But, so far the company is concerned, the
H prohibition was total and complete since Section 79-8
KT PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
651
KARNATAKA
states that it would not be lawful for a company to hold
A
"any land'', with effect and from the date of the
commencement of the amending Act. The Company,
therefore, could not have held the land used for the ·
cultivation of Linaloe on the date of the commencement
of the Act. Further on withdrawal of exemption vide
B
notification dated 08.03.94 the Company was disentitled
to hold the land belonging to Roerichs' since the same
would be governed by the provisions of the Land
Reforms Act. [Para 51] [696-D-G]
1.10. There is no force in the contention that C
opportunity of hearing is a pre-condition for exercising
powers under Section 110 of the Act. No such
requirement has been provided under Section 107 or
Section 110. When the exemption was granted to
Roerichs' no hearing was afforded so also when the D
exemption was withdrawn by the delegate. It is trite law
that exemption cannot be claimed as a matter of right so
also its withdrawal, especially when the same is done
through a legislative action. Delegated legislation which
is a legislation in character, cannot be questioned on the
E
ground of violation of the principles of natural justice,
especially in the absence of any such statutory
requirement. Legislature or· its delegate is also not legally
obliged to give any reasons for its action while
discharging its legislative function. [Para 52] [696-H; 697F
A-CJ
1.11. The challenge on the validity of Section 110 of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as well as the notification
dt.8.3.1994 is repelled and it is held that the land used for.
G
linaloe cultivation would be governed by the provisions
of the Land Reforms Act which is protected under Article
318 of the Constitution having been included in the IXth
Schedule. [Para 53] [697-E]
In re: The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 1,ADDL) SC R
A (Extension of Laws) Act. 1947. Part C States (Laws) Act 1950
(1951) 2 SCR 747; Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. v. Umon of India
AIR 1957 SC 478: 1957 SCR 701; Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others (1984) 4 SCC 27;
B Mohmedalli and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1964 SC
980: 1963 Suppl. SCR 993; Bnj Sunder Kapoor v. I
Additional District Judge and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 561: 1988
(3) Suppl. SCR 558; Punjab Sikn Regular Motor Service.
Moudhapara, Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority &
C Another AIR 1966 SC 1318: 1966 SCR 221; Joginder Singh
& Others v. Deputy Custodian-General of Evacuee Property
& Others AIR 1967 SC 145: 1962 SCR 738; Bharat Hari
Singhania & Others v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central)
& Others (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 46; Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State
D of TN. & Another (2004) 3 SCC 1: 2004 (1) SCR 306;
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M A Rasheed & Others (2004) 4
SCC 460: 2004 (3) SCR 799; So :th India Corporation (P)
Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivendrum & Another
AIR 1964 SC 207: 1964 SCR 280; Commissioner of Wealth
Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. Trustees of H.E.H.
E Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth Trust), Hyderabad (1977)
3 SCC 362: 1977 (3) SCR 735; Chandavarkar Sita Raina
Rao v. Asha/ala S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447: 1986 (3) SCR
866; B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Kamataka and Ors.
(1987) 1 SCC 658: 1987 (1) SCR 1054; Jan Mohammad
F Noor Mohammad Bagban v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR
1966 SC 385: 1966 SCR 505; Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. &
Others v. State of Haryana (1979) 2 SCC 196: 1979 (1) SCR
1070; Quarry Owners' Association v. State of Bihar & Others
. (2000) 8 SCC 655: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 211; State of
G Punjab v. Teha/ Singh and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 7: 2002 (1)
SCR 27; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v.
CESC Ltd. etc. etc. (2002) 8 SCC 715; Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. v. Promoters and Builders Association
and Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 796: 2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 207;
H
KT PLANl.\TION PVT. LTD. & ANR v STATE OF
653
KARNATAKA
B1/1ar State Electricity Board v. Pulak Enterprises and Ors.
A
(2009) 5 sec 641 - referred to
Rajnarain Singh v. The Chairman, Patna Admnistration
Committee. Patna& Another AIR 1954 SC 569: 1955 SCR
290; Vasantlal Maganbha1 San1anwala v. State of Bombay
B
and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 4: 1961 SCR 341; Hamdard
Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi & Another v. Union of.
India & Others (1960) 2 SCR 671; Baku/ Cashew Co. and
Ors. v. Sa/es Tax Officer, Qui/on and Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 365:
1986 (1) SCR 610; Income Tax Officer, Alleppy v. M.C.
C
Pon noose and Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 351: 1970 (1) SCR 678;
Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor and Ors. v. Associated
Transport Madras (P) Ltd. and Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 597: 1981
(1) SCR 627; Ca0nanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin and Ors.
(1969) 3 SCC 112: 1970 (2) SCR 830; Hukam Chand etc. v.
D
Union of India (UO/) and Ors. (1972) 2 SCC 601: 1973 (1)
seR 896; H.S. Srinivasa Raghavachar and Ors. v. State of
Kamataka and Ors. (1987) 2 sec 692: 1987 (2) SCR 1189;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bir/a Cotton, Spinning and
Weaving Mills, Delhi and Another AIR 1968 SC 1232: 1968
E
SeR 251; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
& Others. (1983) 4 SCC 166: 1983 (3) SCR 438; Premium
Granites and Anr. v. State of Tamilnadu and Ors. (1994) 2
SCC 691: 1994 (1) SCR 579; Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Trivandrum and Anr. v. Kunjabmu and Ors. (1980)
F
1 $CC 340: 1980 (2) SCR 260; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd.
and Another v. Union of India and Others (1990) 3 sec 223:
1990 (1) SCR 909; Union of India and Anotherv. Cynamide
India Ltd. and Another Etc. (1987) 2 SCC 720: 1987 (2) SCR
841; H.S.S.K. Niyami & Another v. Union of India & Another G
(1990) 4 sec 516: 1990 (3) SCR 862; Laxmi Khandsari and
Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 600: 1981 (3)
SCR 92; J. K. Industries & Another v. Union of India & Others
(2007) 13 SCC 673: 2007 (12) SCR 136; Balmadies
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011j 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A Plantations Ltd. & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC
133: 1973 (1) SCR 258; Deputy Commissioner and
Collector, Kamrup & Ors. v. Durga Nath Sharma (1968) 1
SCR 561; Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. v. Maharashtra
State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8
B SCC 1: 2007 (9) SCR 853; Gram Panchayat of VIiiage
Jamalpur v. Ma/winder Singh & Others (1985) 3 SCC 661:
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 28; Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Another
v. National Textil::; Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. &
Others (2002) 8 SCC 182: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 555;
c Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and
Another (2004) 6 SCC 36: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 301;
Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Iron and Steel
Labour Board and Another (2010) 2 SCC 273: 2009 (16)
SCR 618; P.N. Krishnan Lal & others vs. C?ovt. of Kera/a &
D Another (1995) Suppl. (2) SCC 187: 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR
526; Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development
Authority and Ors. (2011) 3 sec 139: 2011 (1) SCR 453; E. P
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (1974) 4 SCR 3;
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India & Others (1979) 3 SCC 489: 1979 (3) SCR 1014;
E Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, represented by its Partner Kasturi
Lal, Jammu & Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Another
(1980) 4 SCC 1: 1980 (3) SCR 1338; Chhotabhai Jethabhai
Patel & Co. v. Union of India & Another (1962) Supp (2) SCR
1; State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1964) 1 SCR 371;
F Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India &
Others (1991) 4 SCC 699; D.C. Wadhwa & Others v. State of
Bihar & Others (1987) 1 SCC 378: 1987 (1) SCR 798;
Glanrock Estate Private Limited. v. State of Tamil Nadu (4010)
10 SCC 96: 2010 (12) SCR 597 and Dwarakadas Shrinivas
G (1954) 1 SCR 674 - cited.
Black Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at p.1278 - referred
to.
H
KT PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR v. STATE OF
655
KARNATAKA
Constitutional validity of the Roerich and Devika Rani
A
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 - Plea
of repuqnancy
2.1. The contention that the Roerich and Devika Rani
Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 is
8
invalid due to repugnancy is rejected. [Para 68] [705-C]
2.2. The plea of repugnancy can be urged only if both
the legislations fall under the Concurrent List. Under
Article 254 of the Constitution, a State law passed in
respect of a subject matter comprised in List Ill would be
C
invalid if its provisions are repugnant to a law passed on
the same subject by Parliament and that too only if both
the laws cannot exist together. The question of
repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution arises
when the provisions of both laws are fully inconsistent D
or are absolutely irreconcilable and it is impossible
without disturbing the other, or conflicting results are
produced, when both the statutes covering the same field
are applied to a given set of facts. Repugnancy between
the two statutes would arise if there is a direct conflict
E
between the two provisions and the law made by the
Parliament and the law made by ·the State Legislature
occupies the same filed. [Para 65] [703-C-F]
2.3. When the repugnancy between the Central and
State Legislations is pleaded one has to first examine
whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same
subject matter. The test for determining the same is to
find out the dominant intention of the two legislations and
F
if the dominant intention of the two legislations is
different, they cover different subject matter then merely
G
because the two legislations refer to some allied or
cognate subjects, they do not cover the same field. A
provision in one legislation to give effect to its dominant
purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as
covered by the provision of the other legislation, but H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL) S C.R.
A such partial coverage of the same area in a different
context and to achieve a different purpose does not
bring about the repugnancy which is intended to be
covered by Article 254(2). In other words, both the
legislations must be substantially on the same subject to
B attract Article 254. [Para 66] [703-H; 704-A-D]
2.4. The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate
(Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, as rightly contended
by the State, primarily falls under Entry 18 List II, since
the dominant intention of the legislature was to preserve
C and protect Roerichs' Estate covered by the provisions
of the Land Reforms Act, on the State Government
withdrawing the exemption in respect of the land used
for linaloe cultivation. The Acquisition Act, though
primarily falls under Entry 18 List II incidentally also deals
D with the acquisition of paintings, artefacts and other
valuable belongings of Roerichs' and, hence, the Act
partly falls under Entry 42 List Ill as well. Since the
dominant purpose of the Act was to preserve and protect
Roerichs' Estate as part of agrarian reforms, the inclusion
E of ancillary measures would not throw the law out of the
protection of Article 31 A(1 )(a). On the other hand, the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an act which fell exclusively
under Entry 42 List Ill and enacted for the purpose of
acquisition of land need·ed for public purposes for
F companies and for determining the amount of
compensation to be made on account of such
acquisition, which is substantially and materially different
from the impugned Act whose dominant purpose is to
preserve and protect "estate" governed by Art.31A(a)
G read with Art.31A(2)(a)(iii) of the Constitution.