# [1975] 2 S.C.R. 667

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 667
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-11-07
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-2-s-c-r-667-6208
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Guja~at _Yaca~t Lands_ in ljrban Are'! (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, t9n
-Collslllutrona/rty--lf v,o/attVe of amcle 14, Cons[itution of India.
TJ:e Gujarat Vacant. ~nds in Urban Area (P_rohibition of Alienation) A~t,
1972 1s enacted to proh1b1t th~ alienatiOn of certam vacant lands in urban areas
in th_e State. ~f Gu1arat. Secuon. 2 of the Act embodies a declaration that the
Act .1s fo~ giVIng clfect to the poltcy of ~he State towards securing the principl~
spcc1~~d m clauses .<b) and ( c} of art1cle 39 of the Constitution. Section 4
proh1b1ts the ahenallon of vacant
land after the appointed day. It however.
exempts one plot of vacant land owned by a person not exceeding 1000 sq metres ·
and not forming part of a compact blO<:k..
The transfers in fll.vour of the State
Government, Central Government, local authority, Government company statutory corporations and cooperative house building societies are also exempt~. The
State Government hns been empowered by general or special order to exempt
any area or any nlienation from all or any of the provisions of the Act. This
is subject to the rules made by the State GowrnmenL Every order made: by the
State Government and the Collector exempting any area or alienation from any
of tho provisions of the Act is required to b.: laid before the State legislature.
Tile Learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that in view of the proclamation
of emergency fundamental right guarant~d under Article 19 is under suspension.
It wa., contcnd.:d that the Act off ended Article 14 and that the Act was not directly relatable to the object of Article 39 (b) aod (c) and, thetefore, Article 31C
could not protect it.
.
HELD: (i) It is not nCI."'!Ssary to take recourse ~o ~rticle 31C for u~hold
lng constitutional validity of the Act as it docs no.t mfrmge equal protection of
law guamntced under Artidc 14 of the ConstitUtiOn.
Urban ar~a means nny
area which u comprised in the city or a municipal. Dorough.
Surroun~mg area
not exceeding 16 krru. ba.~ to be fixed by a noulicat1on of ~he ~~ate _Go,emment.
By notification., limit of 16 kms. has been fi:ted in case of bl.g·Cih:s hke Ahmeda..
bad, llaroda etc. but l~'l'>er limits of distance have been pohfied m c~e of small
municipal boroughs.
When the limit of the distance· outstde t~e. c1ty or t<?W?J
area di tfcred from place to place it was not nece"Sary to fi:t the hmtt of pcrmtss!- :
blc area of trunsfcr with reference to the va_lu~ of ~he_ land. It was net~':; l~~=
· ~h: nor expedient to do !O. From the pcrm1ssable ltmt_t of tran,fer the a. .
oF
lOg p:art of the compact block h~d to be e:\dud~d ns tt would have fled ·lo 010\_
P<>li<ntion and mon~uvrings by persons belonging to the same
amt Y um
·
[66HF; 6720]
( .. )
·r. .
d th
is a clear nexus between the
G
)f
• 11
There is rea.~onable cl:ts~I.ICn~on an
ere
.
· h
ut unequals as
ObJect or the Act nnd the classlhCallon. The Act h.ts _nell fr J: Act being to
equal~ nor ha. it discrimin:l!c:tl b.:twe.:n Nuals. The hbJe~t -~· iands from its
Preven.t aJi.,nation oC \'ncnnt lnmls it ri;:~tlv excl_udes 1t ed. ~~-b~7! 0'wner.;hip and
orcrnl!on. Since the object of the Acl IS to ultamatc Y 15 n d transfer in favour
Control of the material r~~ource, to sut>~erve the common Jl00 d Statutory Corof G?vcrnm.:nt, Local Authorities, qovernmcnt Cotpafl~s!Building Societie-•
pornll?ns has b«n ucludcd. Formatton ~f Coopera IVC
The power of the State
0
obv10u~ly a step (or [ullllment of the obJeCt of .the ~ct. nll or any of the rro_o_vernment to uemnt any area or any alienall!l0d {
0~h·e reasons to be record-
"1~100~ of the Act i, n power which i! to be exerct•e
or 'd ·line is to be found irt
t1'1 end in furthcr~nce of the object of the Act.
Th~S\
11 d• by the Collector is
t te ohjcct of the Act. The order of exemption to. ara'IClentific, lndu•trial or
onty where the l:tnd i~ to he u<ed for any educ~u~r~ 'cone--tor i~ (urther con-
~omm~rcia! purpose". The exercise of the power Y ~ 1 Tho ord~r• nr~ to be
rpllcd by orovi,li

## Text

l
..
~ -
A.
B
D
1:.
THAKOREBHAI KEVELBHAI PATEL
v ..
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
November 7, 1974
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J
Guja~at _Yaca~t Lands_ in ljrban Are'! (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, t9n
-Collslllutrona/rty--lf v,o/attVe of amcle 14, Cons[itution of India.
TJ:e Gujarat Vacant. ~nds in Urban Area (P_rohibition of Alienation) A~t,
1972 1s enacted to proh1b1t th~ alienatiOn of certam vacant lands in urban areas
in th_e State. ~f Gu1arat. Secuon. 2 of the Act embodies a declaration that the
Act .1s fo~ giVIng clfect to the poltcy of ~he State towards securing the principl~
spcc1~~d m clauses .<b) and ( c} of art1cle 39 of the Constitution. Section 4
proh1b1ts the ahenallon of vacant
land after the appointed day. It however.
exempts one plot of vacant land owned by a person not exceeding 1000 sq metres ·
and not forming part of a compact blO<:k..
The transfers in fll.vour of the State
Government, Central Government, local authority, Government company statutory corporations and cooperative house building societies are also exempt~. The
State Government hns been empowered by general or special order to exempt
any area or any nlienation from all or any of the provisions of the Act. This
is subject to the rules made by the State GowrnmenL Every order made: by the
State Government and the Collector exempting any area or alienation from any
of tho provisions of the Act is required to b.: laid before the State legislature.
Tile Learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that in view of the proclamation
of emergency fundamental right guarant~d under Article 19 is under suspension.
It wa., contcnd.:d that the Act off ended Article 14 and that the Act was not directly relatable to the object of Article 39 (b) aod (c) and, thetefore, Article 31C
could not protect it.
.
HELD: (i) It is not nCI."'!Ssary to take recourse ~o ~rticle 31C for u~hold
lng constitutional validity of the Act as it docs no.t mfrmge equal protection of
law guamntced under Artidc 14 of the ConstitUtiOn.
Urban ar~a means nny
area which u comprised in the city or a municipal. Dorough.
Surroun~mg area
not exceeding 16 krru. ba.~ to be fixed by a noulicat1on of ~he ~~ate _Go,emment.
By notification., limit of 16 kms. has been fi:ted in case of bl.g·Cih:s hke Ahmeda..
bad, llaroda etc. but l~'l'>er limits of distance have been pohfied m c~e of small
municipal boroughs.
When the limit of the distance· outstde t~e. c1ty or t<?W?J
area di tfcred from place to place it was not nece"Sary to fi:t the hmtt of pcrmtss!- :
blc area of trunsfcr with reference to the va_lu~ of ~he_ land. It was net~':; l~~=
· ~h: nor expedient to do !O. From the pcrm1ssable ltmt_t of tran,fer the a. .
oF
lOg p:art of the compact block h~d to be e:\dud~d ns tt would have fled ·lo 010\_
P<>li<ntion and mon~uvrings by persons belonging to the same
amt Y um
·
[66HF; 6720]
( .. )
·r. .
d th
is a clear nexus between the
G
)f
• 11
There is rea.~onable cl:ts~I.ICn~on an
ere
.
· h
ut unequals as
ObJect or the Act nnd the classlhCallon. The Act h.ts _nell fr J: Act being to
equal~ nor ha. it discrimin:l!c:tl b.:twe.:n Nuals. The hbJe~t -~· iands from its
Preven.t aJi.,nation oC \'ncnnt lnmls it ri;:~tlv excl_udes 1t ed. ~~-b~7! 0'wner.;hip and
orcrnl!on. Since the object of the Acl IS to ultamatc Y 15 n d transfer in favour
Control of the material r~~ource, to sut>~erve the common Jl00 d Statutory Corof G?vcrnm.:nt, Local Authorities, qovernmcnt Cotpafl~s!Building Societie-•
pornll?ns has b«n ucludcd. Formatton ~f Coopera IVC
The power of the State
0
obv10u~ly a step (or [ullllment of the obJeCt of .the ~ct. nll or any of the rro_o_vernment to uemnt any area or any alienall!l0d {
0~h·e reasons to be record-
"1~100~ of the Act i, n power which i! to be exerct•e
or 'd ·line is to be found irt
t1'1 end in furthcr~nce of the object of the Act.
Th~S\
11 d• by the Collector is
t te ohjcct of the Act. The order of exemption to. ara'IClentific, lndu•trial or
onty where the l:tnd i~ to he u<ed for any educ~u~r~ 'cone--tor i~ (urther con-
~omm~rcia! purpose". The exercise of the power Y ~ 1 Tho ord~r• nr~ to be
rpllcd by orovi,lin~ un apoeal to the State _Governmcn ~Jl~rvisory of the orders
~tee<.! before the State ughlature which Will net ~h 11 Collcctllr. [672D-Hl
tllemption made by the State Government or
0
~ .. '
,,
·;·
l,
\·
J j \ ;.
jt'
:~· . ..
668
SUPREME COUJ\T REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.l\.
OluGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 467 of 1972.
Petition Under Article· 32 of the Constitution· of India.
B. Sen and R. M. Mehta, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia, for the
petitioner.
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, G. A. Shah and S. P. Nayar,
for the respondent.
·
The Judgment of the CoUrt. was delivered by
UNTWAW, 1 .-By ~is petition under Article 32 of the Consti·
tution of India the petitioner has chal.len~d the constitutional validity
of the Gujm:at Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Probibltion of Alien-
:ation) Act, 1972, Gujarat Act No. 12 of 1972-hereinafter refentd
to as the Act on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights of
the petitioner granted under Arts. 14 and ·19 of the Constitution. In
the writ petition the petitioner claims that he owns 9559 square yards
-of land situate in District Bulsar, sub-district and Taluk.a Navsari.
'Village Kobilpore. He intends to sell the said land but is unable to do
so because of the prohibition of alienation imposed under the Act.
Mr. B. Sen, learned counsel for ihe petitioner conceded, and in
<JUI opinion riglitly, that since the Proclamation of Emergency is in
.operation urider Article 358 of the Constitutio.n, fundamental right
guaranteed under Article '19 is under suspension and therefdre 1ho
Act could not be assailed for infr.action 'of Article 19 even if there
'be any. Counsel, however, submitted that it does violate the guarantee
-of equat protection of the law and offends Article )4. In the Act under
section 2 is embodied a declaration that the Act is for giving effect to
the. policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in
cliUiOS {b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution and consequently
Article 3 t C would save the Act from attack on account of the tnfrao.
tion ot Article 14. But it was s~bmitted that the Act is not directly
relatable. to the obiect of Article 39(b) and (c) and hence Article 31C
cannot protect .it In our opinion it is not necessary in this cue to take
recourse to Article 31C for upholding the constitutional validity of
the Act as it does not infringe the equal protection of law guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner endeavoured to make out the
foDowiog points for attacking the Act as being violative of Article
14 :
.
( 1) That the limit of Prohibition an respect· of the area
of the vacant land is the same irrespective of its situation and value thus putting unequals as equals.
{2) Tbat it does not apply to building lands and building
areas have been left out
( 3) That there is discrimination between the permissible limit of alienation on the basis of the irrational
c-:>nsideration of the area forming part of a eompoct
b!ock or· not
A
B
c
D
F
B
"
0
F
G
H
_T, I:. PATEL Y. GUJAU.T. (Untwalia, J.)
( 4) That there is DO ·r"tional basis for not applying the
Aot in ~pect ot. the alienation of vacant lands in
favour of the State Oovt., the Centrt~l Oovt.1 Local
authorities, Govt. companies, Oovt. Corporations or
the Cooperative House Buildlllg Societtes.
(!) There is 110 fllideline provided in section: 7 of the
Aet ror ex~~ of th~ power of exemption.
669
Leatned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, the State
of Glijatat, submitted thai none of the points. urged on behalf of the
. petitioners has got any ~ubstance arid there is no violation of the equal
pr~tion of ·law guar~teed under Article 14 of the Constitution ...
We s.ball first refer to and 'wherever necessary read some of the .
Rlevant provisions of the Act. The Preamble of the Act indicate&
that it. is llt1 Ad to prohibit alienation of cettaln vacant lands in urban
.areas in tht State of Gujarat. The object of the Act is to prohibit
alienatioD of tl2e vacant lands eo that ultimately the ownership and
c:ontrol of the material mources. of the Commutlity may be so distributed u best lo supo~e the common good and may prevent tho
concentration of wealth to the common dettiment. It may be pointed
out here that the impugned ~ct ia a temporary one. Originally it waa
to remain in force for on~ year but the Jreriod is being exteilded from
time to time ia order to enable the State Legislature to pass the Urb&ni
Property Ceilings Act. Prohibition of alienation by the Act is a preparatory measure for distribution of the material resources of the community,, The definition section of the Act is section 3. Oause (b)
defines "Oty" to mean a CitY as constituted under the Bombay Provi.Jielal Munit:ipal Corporations Act, 1949. The definition of "Collector" includes certain other officers also as mentioned in clause (c).
It is necessary to read
cl~use (d) which defines the "compact block"
to mean "any block of vacant land in nn urhan area exceeding one
tbcUsand square me~ in exte1;1t, (whether owned by one person or
jointly by more than one person or owne~ in contiguous parts separately by one or more members of a family unit) and whether or not
divided by a private road, street, lane, footway, passage or drain,
Jiattttal or artifieial."'Under clause (dd) "family unit" means an indivldUaT, his or her spouse and ·their children." aause (e)
defines
''m~nicipal borough" to mean "a municioal borou~h a~ constituted or
deemed to be constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963!'
It is necessary to read clauses {i) and '{j) of section 3 in full.
(i) .
.,urban area" means.-
(1) any area which is comprised 'for the time being in a
Qty or a municipal borough and also any such area
in the vicinity thereof, within a distance, not
exceeding sixteen kilometres from the local limits 'of
the City, or as the case may be, of the municipal
borough ~cemed, as the State Govt. may, having
regard to ibe extent of and the scope for the urbani-
__ ,
.,
1 -
670
. (2)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 2 S.C.R.
.
ther relevant considerations,
sation of. that. are~
0~~ Official Gazette,. specify in
by a notificatiOn m
this behalf; and
b' h tb State Government may, by
any oth~r a~ea w
1
~ffici;l Gazette declare to be an
notificatwn m 0e regard to any project-existing in
urban area. bilimg pointed day or having regard to
that area. '?~ ; aihe near future of any
project
th~ possJbiblil~h d in that area where any such pro·
bemg esta
15 .e.
of the State Government, bas led
· t · the opm10n
'
]CC • ~ l'k ly to lead to urbanisation of that area;
to or ts 1 e
.
,;
t l~d" means land in an urban area, a~-
U)
~a~~~~ or non-agricultural, other than land on wbi~h
~n building has been or is bein~ constructed m
ac!ordance with any
law
regulating
such . C<;mStruction and the land appur~enant to such bwldu~
to the minimum extent reqmred under such Ia w. or
under the provisions of the Bombay . Town Planrung
Act, 19 54, or any other correspondmg law for the
time being in force.
Explanation-for Lhe purposes
o~ thls clause
any land which is vacant en the appomted day shall
be deemed to be vacant land, notwithstanding that
the construction of a building thereon has been commenced on or after the said day.••
·
A
B
c
E
&ction 4 provides for prohibition of alienation etc. in these terms :
( 1) No person who owns any vacant land shall, on or after the
appointed day, alienate such land by way of sale, gift, exchange (mor!-
g;tgc other than simple mortgage), lease or otherwise, or effect a par~
tion or create a trust of such land; and (lOY alienation made, or partt~
F
tion effected, or trust created in contravention of this section shall be
null and void :
· . Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the .alicn:ttion by any person of any one plot o! vacant land owned by lum not
exceeding one thousand squ:~re metres in extent and not forming p:ut
of a compact bl<><;k or to the effecting o( a partition or creation of ll G
trust of any such plot.
~~) The pr~visions of sub-!icction (1) shall apply to any s~e,
part1t10n or creatiOn of trust, of vacant land of any person in eJtecutlOn
of a decree ?r order o~ a. civil court or of any award or order of any
other authonty.
Re-~tnchon' on rr~istration of d()Cuments have bt:en
put in section S. Section 6(1) says that "Nothing in this Act shall
apply to any transfer of vacant land by or in favour of-
(a) A State Government or the Central Government or
a local authority;
.,·
(r.:
A
B
t:·tc. PATBL_ll, GVJARAT (Untwalia, /.)
671
(b) A Government Company as defined in section 617 · ·
of the Companies Act, 1956;
·
(c) a corporation established by o( under a Central Pro- ..
vincial or State Act, which· ~ controlled ·or managed
by a State Government or the Central Government;
(d) ·such co-operative house building societies established ·
.
for the purpose of providing housing QCCOmmodation
to weaker sections of people; as may ~ approved
by the State Government iri this behalf." ·
Sub-section. (2) of section 6 .makes ·a dis.tinction ·in the applica'tion o.f
sub-section ( 2) ·of.· sec'tion 4 ·in relation to the execution of a decree
or an order .of a civil court in favour of the Goverilment or· the local
C' authority. :Under. sub-section ( 1) of section 7 "the State Government,
may, by a general or special order in writing and for reaso~ to be·
recorded therein, exempl any area or. any alienation or other transfer
of ·any vacant llll;ld from all or any of t\le provisions of this ·Act.."
Under· sub-section (2), to avoid any barifship also, tbe State Government may, if it considers it necessacy so to do, exempt, by an· order
in writing, any alienation or other transfer Qf any vacant land from
all or any o~ the proVisions of this Act. Subject to apy rules that may
D
E
be ·made in this ~half or to any general or speciaJ, orders of the
State Government, the Collector has been authorised under sub-section (3) of section 7 by crder in Writing, to exempt any alienation or
other ·transfer of any vacant ~d from . the prov-Woos of this. Aet in
case the 1~ is .to be used for any educational, scientific, industrial qr
comJDer~l purpoSe or for such other purpose as may be Dtescci~.
"Prescribed .. means under· clause (g) of the third section 'tprescribed
by ruleS ·made under this Ad." The State Government bas power
under section 12 :to make .the rul~. Sub-section (4) enjoins that every
<>rdet issued by the ~tate Government. under sub-Sections (1.) and (2)
and by the Collector under section 3 sliall be laid before the State
Legislature as soon as poSsible after its issue. Alienation etc. made ·on
F .or after the 1st July,·1972 but before the 8ppointed. _day under the
Aet. bas also been affected under section 8 . .Sect1on 9 .gives a right to
appeal against the order. of ~
Collector under sub-section (3) ~
section 7 to the State Government Within tbe prescribed period IU1d
in the preScribed manner. 'l1le 'jurisdictl~n of tJte Ovil. Court ·}las ~
barred under section 10. A penalty hal been provi~ under section
G
11. The act overrides.other laws in view of ~tion· 1~.
·
It waold bel noticed .that the urban area means an1 area which· is
'colllPri,Sed in the City. or a MuntciOal BQrou2l\. Stirrolindin!l distance
Qf the City or municipal barough bas to . ..be fixed by a notification of
the State Qover:ninent jn tbe Official Gazette having regard to the relevant considerations. The maximum distance of such an area cannot
exceed sixteen kilometreS.
We were infornied at the Bar 'bv the
'teamed Solicitor General that notifications hav.e beeri issued fiiitl~ the
K
maximum lir.nit of 16 kilometres in case of big .cities like Ahmeda6ad~ ·
'Bitoda etc. but lesser limits of distances have been notffied in case of
small municipal borougbs. Under the ·provisc)to 8ub-secdon ·<n of
1
L319SupCI!7S
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
section 4 a person is not. prohibited from alienating one plot of vacant
land owned by him not exoeeding 1000 sq. metres provided it does
not form part of a compact block. When the limit of 'the distance outside the City or town area differed from place to place it was not
necessary to fix the limit of permissible. area of transfer with refc·
rcnc:l to the value of the land. It was neither feasible nor expedient to
Jo so. From the permissible limit of transfer the area forming part of
the compact block had to be excluded as it would have led to manipulations and manoeuvrings by persons belonging to the same family
unit. The land belonging jointly to more than one person or ownec.l
in contiguous part separately by one or more members of a family
unit, which unit is a narrow one as defined in clause ( dd) of section
3, comes \lllder the definition of compact block. Then only the permissible limit of transfer does not apply.
Eltcluding the land on which any building has been or is being
constructed in accordance with any law regulating such construction
and only the permissible limit of the vacant land appertaining to it is
a reasonable classification distingujshing the vacant land from
the
building land. The objec.t of the act is to prevent alienation of certain
vacant lands and that being so it is rightly excluded the building lands
from its operation.
It is plain that th~ ma.i.it object of the act being ultimately to dis·
tribute the ownership and control of the material
r~sources of the
community as best to subserve the common good and to prevent concentration of wealth, a transfer in favour of the Government, local
authorities, Government companies or Corporations had to be ex·
eluded as such transfer could not possibly defeat the object of the Act,
rather, it would give a fillip to it. Permitting transfers of vacant lands
in favour of Cooperative Housing Building Societies is obviously a
step for the fW,filment of the object of the Act. The Act cannot be
held to be discriminatory on such grounds.
The power of the State Government under sub-section ( 1) of sec·
tion 7 to exempt any area or any alienation or other transfer of vacant
land from all or any of the prov1sions of the Act is a power which is
to be exercised for the reasons to be recorded in the general or the
special order and in furtherance of the object of the Act. The guideline is to be found in the obiect of the act i ~lf. The POWer under
sub-section (2) has to be exercised by ·the State Government for
avoiding any hardship. There is sufficient guideline for exemption in
case of hardship which will depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The order of exemotion to be made bv the Co'Jector
can only be in a case where the land .iS to be used for any educa•
tional, scientific, industrial or commercial purposes, It has not been
left open to the Collector to decide for what other. purpose he can
grant the exemption. Such other purpose can be only that as may be
prescribed bv the State Government by rules made under section 12
of the Act. Sub-section ( 4) of section 7 is a good safety valve. Tbe
State Le~lature will act as a Supervi3or of the orders of exemption
A
B
c
D
E
F
G.
H
A
B
T. K. PAtEL V. OUJARAT ( Untwalia, J.)
6 7 3
made by the State Government or the Collector. The exercise of the
power of exemption by the Collector is further controlled by providing
<~n appeal to the State· Government under section 9 of the Act.
In our opinion, therefore, there is no. violation of the equal protection of law guarant~ under Art. 14 of the Constitution. Classifications are all reasonable and there is a clear nexus between the
ob}e:ct of the act and th~ clas$ific:ations. They have neither put unequnls
as equals nor has discriminated between equal's.
ln. the result the writ PJtition fails and is dismissed with costs.
P.H.P.
Petition dismissed.