# UNION OF INDIA ETC v. VALLURI BASAVAIAH CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1979] 3 S.C.R. 802
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-05-01
- **Case number:** WRIT PBTITION NO. 350 OF 1977
- **Bench:** Y. V. Oiandrachud, P. N. Bhagwatj, V. R. KRISHNA lYER, V. 0. Tulzapurkar, A. P. Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-etc-v-valluri-basavaiah-chaudhary-etc-etc-7807
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Constitution of India 1950. Art. 252(1)-Term 'legislature' therein
1neans
only the House or Houses of Legislature and not the Governor-'An Act of
Legislature', 'A legislative Act', 'A resolution ,of the House', 'Bill'-Difference
between.
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976-Whether ultra vires
Parlianzent so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned-Inclusion of State
of Rajasthan in Schedule I of·the Act and categorisation of the urban agglomerations of the cities and to1vns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category 'C' and Ajn1er,
Kata and Bikaner in Category 'D' whether beyond legislative
con1p•?tcni:c of
Parlia1nent-Existence of a master plan not li sine qua non for applicability of
D
Act to an urban agglomeration.
E
F
G
H
The Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956. S.
244( 1) (c) (iii)~Master plan to designate the land subject to con1pul!ory acqui·
sition.
The State Legislatures of eleven States, (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana,
Jii111achal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, U.P. and
West Bengal) considered it desirable to have a uniform legislation enacted by
Parliament for the imposition of a ceiling on urban property for the country as
a whole a.nd in compliance with cl. (I) of Art. 252 of the Constitution pas5ed
a resolution to that effect.
Parliament accordingly, enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976. In the first instance, the Act came into force on the date of its introduction in the Lok Sabha i.e. January 28, 1976 and covered the Union Territories
and the eleven States which had already passed the requisite resolution under
Art. 252 (I ) of the Constitution, including the State of Andhm Pradesh. Subsequently, the Act was adopted, after passing resolutions under Art. 252( 1) of the
Constitution by the State Legislatures of Assam, Biber, Madhya Pradesh. Manipur, Meghalaya and Rajasthan. The Act is in force in seventeen States and all
the Union Territories in the country.
The primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was to provide for the imposition of a C'eiling 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 speculation and profiteering therein, and with
a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the Directive Principles of
Articles 39(b) and (c).
•
•
•
•
UNION v. V. B. CHAUDHRY
803
The legislation faJls under Entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule of th~
Constitution which refers to 'Land, that is· to ooy, rights in or over land, etc.
The State Legislatures alone are competent to enact any legislation rcJating to
land of every description including lands situate in urban areas.
The resolutions passed by the State Legislatures, vested in Parliament the
power to regulate by law, the imposition of a ceiling on urban im1nuvable property and acquisition of such property in excess of this ceiling, as well as in respect of 'all matters connected therewith and ancillary or incidental thereto.'
In writ petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court being of the view
that the term 'legislature' in Art. 252 ( 1) of the Constitution comprise' both the
Houses of Legislature, (the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council)
and the Governor of the State, struck down the Act on the ground that the
Parliament was not competent to enact the impugned Act for the State of
Andhra Pradesh inasmuch as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh did not pe.rticipate in the process of authorisation for the passing of the Act by the Parliament.
A
B
c
The High Court observed that since two distinct
terms
'legislature' and
'Houses of Legislature' were used in the same article they must, as a matter of
c

## Text

_Characters 0–38,680 of 81,881. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38680 for what follows._

A
B
0
802
UNION OF INDIA ETC.
v.
VALLURI BASAVAIAH CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC.
May 1, 1979
[Y. V. OIANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATJ, V. R. KRISHNA lYER,
V. 0. TULZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J
Constitution of India 1950. Art. 252(1)-Term 'legislature' therein
1neans
only the House or Houses of Legislature and not the Governor-'An Act of
Legislature', 'A legislative Act', 'A resolution ,of the House', 'Bill'-Difference
between.
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976-Whether ultra vires
Parlianzent so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned-Inclusion of State
of Rajasthan in Schedule I of·the Act and categorisation of the urban agglomerations of the cities and to1vns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category 'C' and Ajn1er,
Kata and Bikaner in Category 'D' whether beyond legislative
con1p•?tcni:c of
Parlia1nent-Existence of a master plan not li sine qua non for applicability of
D
Act to an urban agglomeration.
E
F
G
H
The Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956. S.
244( 1) (c) (iii)~Master plan to designate the land subject to con1pul!ory acqui·
sition.
The State Legislatures of eleven States, (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana,
Jii111achal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, U.P. and
West Bengal) considered it desirable to have a uniform legislation enacted by
Parliament for the imposition of a ceiling on urban property for the country as
a whole a.nd in compliance with cl. (I) of Art. 252 of the Constitution pas5ed
a resolution to that effect.
Parliament accordingly, enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976. In the first instance, the Act came into force on the date of its introduction in the Lok Sabha i.e. January 28, 1976 and covered the Union Territories
and the eleven States which had already passed the requisite resolution under
Art. 252 (I ) of the Constitution, including the State of Andhm Pradesh. Subsequently, the Act was adopted, after passing resolutions under Art. 252( 1) of the
Constitution by the State Legislatures of Assam, Biber, Madhya Pradesh. Manipur, Meghalaya and Rajasthan. The Act is in force in seventeen States and all
the Union Territories in the country.
The primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was to provide for the imposition of a C'eiling 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 speculation and profiteering therein, and with
a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the Directive Principles of
Articles 39(b) and (c).
•
•
•
•
UNION v. V. B. CHAUDHRY
803
The legislation faJls under Entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule of th~
Constitution which refers to 'Land, that is· to ooy, rights in or over land, etc.
The State Legislatures alone are competent to enact any legislation rcJating to
land of every description including lands situate in urban areas.
The resolutions passed by the State Legislatures, vested in Parliament the
power to regulate by law, the imposition of a ceiling on urban im1nuvable property and acquisition of such property in excess of this ceiling, as well as in respect of 'all matters connected therewith and ancillary or incidental thereto.'
In writ petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court being of the view
that the term 'legislature' in Art. 252 ( 1) of the Constitution comprise' both the
Houses of Legislature, (the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council)
and the Governor of the State, struck down the Act on the ground that the
Parliament was not competent to enact the impugned Act for the State of
Andhra Pradesh inasmuch as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh did not pe.rticipate in the process of authorisation for the passing of the Act by the Parliament.
A
B
c
The High Court observed that since two distinct
terms
'legislature' and
'Houses of Legislature' were used in the same article they must, as a matter of
construction, bear different meanings, and The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 is ultra vires the Parliament so far as the State of Andhra PraD
desh is concerned. It also held that even assuming the Act is in force in the
State, il is not applicable to Wo.rangal because there was no master plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of s. 244( 1) ( c) of the Andhra Pradesh
(Tclengana Area) District Municipa.J.ities A'Ct, 1956.
In the connected writ petition under Art. 32, the question raised was \Vbether
the inclusion of the State of Rajasthan in Schedule I to the Urban (Land Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the categorisation of the urban agglomeration of
the cities and towns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category 'C' and Ajmcr, Kota nntl
Bikaner in category 'D' therein is beyond the legislative competence of
Parlia~
ment and, therefore, the Act is liable to be struck down to that extent.
In tlvJ appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the apreJlant,
that the term 'legislature' in Art. 252(1) must, in the context,
mean
the
House or the Houses of Legislature, as the case may be and it does not include
the Governr.r. The key to the interpretation of the first part of cl. (I) of Art.
252 lies in the words 'to that effect', and they obviously refer to the 'desirability'
of Parlia.nent making a law on a State subject. It was pointed out that though
the Governor is the component part of the State Legislature under Art. 168, be
Hi precluded by the terms of Art. 158(1) from being a member of either l!ouse
of Parliament or of a House of Legislature of any State. Not being a met:1ber of
the House er Houses of Legislature of a State, as the case may be, the question
of his participation, in the proceedings of the State Ugislature in passing a reso·
lotion under Art. 252(1) does not at a.Ii arise. To concede to the Governor the
power to participate in the process of authorization for the passing of a law by
the Parliament on a State subject under Art. 252(1), as the High Court had
dor.e, or to the process of ratification of a constitutional amendment by
the
State Legislature under proviso to Art. 368(2) to a constitutional amendment by
the Parliainent under Art. 368(1), would create a dangerous situation and would
be destructive of the constitutional system which is based on the
Westminster
model unJer which the Governor is only the constitutional head of the state.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979) 3 S.C.R.
The Ptuhament being invested with the power by resolution passed under
the first part of Art. 252( 1) by as many as eleven states, to legi~late on t~
subject i.e. tc make a law for the imposition of a ceiling on immo-1able pnrperty, it h:id the competence to so structure the Act that it was capable of being
adopted by other States under the second part of Art. 252(1). A forriori, the
specification of the State of Rajasthan by which the Act may be adopted,
as
weli as the categorisation of the urban agglomerations therein to which it may
apply, had to be there.
Allowir.g the appeals and dismissing the writ petition;
HELD; 1 (a) Declared that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
1976 ai Jaw enacted by the Parliament by virtue of its powers under A.rlide
252(1) is and has always been in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with
effect from January 28, 1976.
[8310]
(b) Declared that the Act extends to the Urban agglon1erations of Wan1ngal.
[8310]
(c) The Act applies to the Slates of Rajasthan with effect from March 9,
1976.
[8310]
2 .. Art. 252 appears in Part XI headed 'Relations between the Union and
the States' and
occurs in Chapter I relating to 'Legislative
Relations', i.e.,
dealing with the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the
States. Our constitution though br'oadly federal in structure is modelled on
the British Parliamentary
system,
¥.'ith
unitary features.
Parlioment may
assume legislative po\vers (though temporarily) over any subject under Art.
249, by a two third vote that such legislation is
necessary in
'the national
interest', while a Proclamation of Emergency under 1\rt. 352 is in operation,
Parliament- is also competent under Art. ~ 250 to legislate with respect to any
such matter in the State List. Art. 251 makes it clear that the legislative po~'er
of the State legislatures to make any lav.., \Vhich they have power under the
Constitution to m.:1ke, is restricted by the provisions of Articles
249 and 250,
but, if any Jaw made by the lcgisl<iture of a State is repugnant to ~1ny provision
of a law enacted by the Parlia1nent, the la\V nladc by Pnrlian1ent shall prevail
and the la\V made by the State legislature to the extent of repugnancy shall
not be valid so long ns the law enacted by Parliament is effective and operative.
[812H-813C]
3. \Vhile' Art. 263 provides for the creation of an Inter-St:1te Cuun.:il for
effecting administnitive co-ordin;:ition between the St<1tes in matters of common
interes.t, .Art. 252 proviL11::s the Jeghslative means to attain that object. [813F]
4. The effect of the passing of a resolution under cl.(1) of Art. 252
i~ that
Parliament, which has no power to legislate with respect to the matter which
is th~ subject of the resolution, becomes entitled to legislate \Vith respect to it.
and the State legislature ceases to have a po'Aer to make a Jaw relating to that
matter.
After the enactment of a la\v by the Parliament under this Article, it
is open to any of the other States to adopt the Act for such State by merely
passing a resolution to that effect in its legislature,
but the operation of the
Act in such State cannot be from a date earlier than the date of the resolution.
passed iu the Legislature adopting the Act. [8 I 3E, Fl
•
'
•
•
•
•
UNION v. V. B. CHAUDHRY
805
5. The question as to v:hether or not there is surrender by the State Legis·
]ature of its power 'to legislate, and if so, to what extent, must depend on the
language of the resolution passed under Art. 252(1).
[813G]
M/S. R.M.D.C. (Mysore) Prirnte Ltd. v, The State· of Mysore [1962] 3
SCR 230 referred to :
·
6, Article 252(2) specifically lays down that after Parliament makes an
Act in pursuance of the resolu1ion, such Act cannot be amended or repealed
by the State Legislature even though the n1atter to which the Act of Parliament
relates was included in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
[813H]
7. Art. 252(1) is in two parts.
The first part of the Article is only introductory the second is the operative part.
The first part merely recites about
B
the "desirability" of the Parliament legislating on a subject in respect of which
C
it has no power to make laws except as provided in A:ticles 249 and 250. The
v.urds "to that effect" in the first part, therefore, refer to the 'desirability' for
effecting administrative control by the Parliament over two or more States in
respect of matters of common interest. Thus the word 'legislature' in the first
part of Art. 252(1), in the context in which it appears, cannot mean the three
·component parts of the State Legislature contempl~1ted by Art. 168, but only
the House or Houses of Legislature, as the case may be, i.e. excluding the
D
Governor.
[8150, 815H-816AJ
8. The High Court had completely overlooked the fact that there is a clear
distinction between 'an Act of legislature,' 'a legislative act' and 'a resolution
of the House.
[816BJ
9. lt is quite clear fron1 an enumeration of the powers, functions and duties
of the Governor, that he cannot, in the very nature of things, participate in the
proceedings of the House or Houses of Legislature, while the State Legislature
passes a 'resolution' in terms of Art. 252(1), he not being a member of the
legislature under Art. 158.
[817C]
10. The right of the Governor to send messages to the House or Houses
of the Legislature under Art. 175 (2), with respect to a Bill pending in the
legislature or otherwise, norn1al1y arises when
the Governor withholds
his
assent to a Bill under Art. 200, or when the President, for \.\"hose consideration
a Bill is reserved for assent, returns the Bill withholding his assent.
[817E]
11. /\ 'Bill' is something quite different from a 'resolution of the House'
and, therefore, there is no question of the Governor sending any me<;sage under
Art. 175 (2) wfth regard to a resolution pending before the House or Houses
E
F
of the Legi•lature.
[817FJ
G
12. The constitutional requirement under proviso to
Art. 368 (2) of
a
ratification by the legislature of not less than one half of the States is that so
far as the State legislatures are concerned, it re')uires that a resolution should
be passed ratifying the amendment. Such a resolution requires voting, and the
Governor never vo.tes upon any issue.
[818E]
Jatin Chakravarty v. Shri H. K, Bose A.1.R. 1964 Cal. 500 approved.
13. What is tn1e of a ratification by the State legislatures under proviso to
Art. 368(2), is equally true of a resolution of the House or Houses of the
H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.G.R.
A
Legislature under Art. 252(1). The Governor, nowhere comes in the picture
at all in those matters.
[818F]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
14. The absence of the words 'unless the context otherwise requires' in Art.
168, cannot control the meaning of the term 'legislature' in Art. 252(1). The
term 'legislature', in the context in which it appears, can
only mean the
House or Houses of Legislature, as the case may be.
[819C, D]
15. The subject matter of Entry 18, List II of the Seventh Schedule i.e.
'land' covers 'land and buildings' and
would, therefore, necessarily
include
'vacant land.' The expression 'urban inlillovable property' may mean 'land
and buildings' or 'buildings' or 'land'.
It would take in lands of every descrip·
tion i.e. agricultural land, urban land or any other kind and
it necessarily
include& vaca<1t land.
{820G-H]
16. Before the Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha on January 28, 1976 it
was preceded by State wise deep consideration and consultation by the respec~
tive States, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. A working Group was
constituted and in its report it proposed the imposition of a ceiling on urban
immovable property and defined 'urban area' to include the area within the
territorial limits of municipalities or other local bodies and also the peripheral
areas outside the said limits. The Govt. prepared a Model Bill in pursuance
of the Report and a copy of each of the Report of the working Group and· tho
Model Bill was placed on the table of Parliament. The said documents were
forwarded to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, besides other State
Governments for consideration by the State Legislatures before they passed a
re.'lOlution under Art 252(1).
[821A.C]
17. The State Legislatures were, therefore, aware of the position when they
passed a resolution authorising the Parliament to make a la\\>' in reipCCt of
urban immovable property. Their intention was to include the lands within
the territorial area of a municipality or other local body of an urban area and
also its peripheral area. The concePt of ceiling on urban immovable property
and the nature and content of urban agglomeration ultimately defined by s.
2(n) of the impugned Act, \\'as, therefore, fully understocxl by the State Government•.
[821D-El
18. It is but axiomatic that once the legislatures of two or more states, by
a resolution in terms of Art. 252(1), abdicate or surrender the area i.e. their
IX>Wer of legislation on a State subject, the Parliament is competent to make
a law relating to the subject. It would indeed be contrary to the terms of Art.
252(1) to read the resolution passed by the State Legislature subject to any
restriction. The resolution, contemplated under Art. 252(1) is not hedged in
with conditions. In making such a law, the Parliament was not bound to
exhaust the whole field of legislation. It could make a la"'·· like the present
Act, with respect to ceiling on vacant land in an urban agglomeration, as a
first step towards the eventual imposition of ceiling on immovable property
of every other description.
[822B-D]
19. Under the scheme of the Act the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land
in urban agglomeration does not depend on the existence of a master plan.
The definition of 'urban land', as contained in s. 2(o) of the Act m ill two
parts, namety (i) in a case where there is a master plan prepared under the
•
•
(
•
..
UNION v. V. B. CHAUDHARY
807
law, for the time being in force, any land within the limits of an urban agglo ·
meration and referred to as such in the master plan, is treated to be urban
'.land, and · (2) in a case where there is no master plan, or the master plan
does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an
urban agglomeration and situate in any area included within the local limits
of a municipality or other local authorities is regarded as such. The existence
of a master plan within the meaning of s. 2(h) is, therefore, not a sinr qua non
for the applicability of the Act to an urban agglomeration. [824D-F]
20. A master plan prepared by a municipality may or may not contain a
proposal for compulsory acquisition of land, or any descriptive matter or map
to illustrate a scheme for development.
Mere a.bsence of such
proposal for
compulsory acquisition or a· map or descri:Ptive matter v.uuld not be tantamount to there being no master plan. A master plan may include proposals
for development of areas required to be covered by s. 244, sub-s.(1), cl.(c)
contiguous and adjacent to the municipal limits of a city or town. but may not
designate the land to be compulsorily acquired, the absence of which would
not invalidate the scheme. This is because the municipality has always the
power under s. 250 of the Act to acquire the land required for implementation
of such scheme.
[825E-F]
B
c
21. The revised master ple.n prepared for Warangal does, as it should proD
vide for various development schemes, it also designates the lands subject to
compulsory acquisition.
Even, if it were not so, the master plan prepared
under s. 244, sub-s.(1), cl,(c) did not cease to be 'a master plan prepared in
accordance with the law for the time being in force', within the meaning of
s. 2(h) of the Act, in relation to the town of Warangal. The Act is, therefore
clearly applicable to the urban agglomerations of Warangal and it extends not
only to all the lands included within the local limits of the Warangal MuniciE
pality but also includes the peripheral areas specified i.e. one kilometre around
such limits. [825G-826A]
22. The Parliament having been invested '"'ith po\vers to legislate on
a
State subject, by resolutions passed by Legislatures of two or more States under
Art. 252(1) has plenary powers to make suitable legislation. It follows, as a
necessary corollary, that the Act passed by the Parliament under Art. 252(1)
can be so structured as to be capable of being effectively adopted by the other
States. Article 252(1) undoubtedly enables the Parliament to make a uniform
law. The Act so passed would automatically apply to the States, the legislatures of which have passed a resolution in terms of Art. 252 ( 1), and at the
same time it must be capable of being adopted by other States which have not
sponsored a resolution, i.e. the non-sponsoring States. The second part of Art.
252(1) will be meaningful only if it were so interpreted otherwise. it would
be rendered wholly redundant. [830A-C]
23. The Act would automatically apply from the date of its application to
thoee States which had passed the resolution in terms of the first part of Art .
252(1 ), and would extend to the adopting States from the date of the resolutiot!S · passed by the legislatures of such States. The Parliament had, therefore,
in fact and in lav.•, competence to legislate on the subject of the imposition of
ceiling on urban immovable property, and the Schedule to the Act cannot
therefore, be sm1ck down in relation to the State of Rajasthan.
[830F]
F
G
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
24. Jn a law relating to the imposition of ceiling on vacant 1;:1nd in urban
B
agglomerations throughout the territory of India, it was competent for the
Parliament under Entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule not only to have the
States specified in the Schedule to the Act where the law will extend, but also
include the categorisation of urban agglomerations in respect of the whole of
the territory of India. [830E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal Nos. 11196/76,
165-300/77 and 29-38/77 and 5/77.
'
(From the Judgme11t and Order dated 3-12-1976 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1634/76, 2068, 2426,
2477, 2585, 3026, 2914, 2918, 2926, 2965, 3471, 2517, 2522,
.--
258 l, 2597, 2401, 2461-2462, 2465, 2469, 2485, 2507. 2877, 2949 ~
3213, 3469, 2492, 2509, 2513, 2514, 2520, 2523, 2818, 2935, 295[
I
c
D
and 2936 of 1976, 2509, 2513, 2514, 2520, 2523, 2818, 2'132, 2935,
2936 and 2951/76 and 2492 of 1976).
AND
WRIT PBTITION NO. 350 OF 1977
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
S. V. Gupte, Attorney General of India (1896/76), U. R. Lalit
(1896/76) R. N. Sachthey, Girish Chandra, K. N. Bhatt (1896/76)
E
Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellants in C.As. 1896 and 265-300/
77 for Respondent No. 1 in W.P. 350/77 and for the Union o[ India
in C.As. 29-38/77 and Respondent No. 4 in C.A. 5/77.
F
G
H
V. M. Tarkunde, K. K. Mehrish, S. M. Jail! and S. K. J!dn for
the Petitioner in W.P. 350/77.
T. V. S. Narasimhachari and M. S. Ganesh for the Appellant in
CAs. 5 and 29-38/77.
~
K. K. Venugopal, Addi. Sol. Genl. and S. S. Khanduja for Res-
,
pondents 2-3 in W.P. 350/77.
B. Kanta Rao for RR 1-50, 53-66,
68-113,
85-91, 93-95,
97-100 and 112-114 in C.A. 1896/76.
Vepa P. Sarathi and B. Parthasarathi for RR 28 and 53 in C.A.
276/77.
P. Ram Reddy, A. V. V. Nair and Subodh Markendaya for the
other appearing Respondents in C.As. 279, 280-84, 286 and 293/77.
R. K. Mehta, for Advocate General for the State of Orissa.
Badridas Shanna, for Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan.
•
UNION v. v. B. CHAUDHARY (Sen, J.)
809
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J.-These appeals, by certificate, are directed
against the
judgment and order of tbe Andhra Pradesh High Court dated Decem·
ber 3,
1976 allowing a batch of thirty-seven writ
petitions.
The
appeals raise an important question, namely, whether the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires the Parliament so
far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned.
A subsidiary question is also involved as to whether even assuming the Act is in force
in the State, it is not applicable to Warangal because there was no
~ master plan prepared in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
s. 244(1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telengana
Area)
District
•
r Municipalities Act, 1956.
\.
•
A further question arises in a connected
writ
petition
under
Art. 32 of the Constitution, whether the inclusion of the
State ol
Rajasthan in Schedule I to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the categorisation of the urban agglomerations
of the cities and towns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category 'C' and
Ajmer, Kata and Bikaner in category 'D' therein, is
beyond
the
legislative competence of Parliament and, therefore, the Act is liable
to be struck down to that extent.
The State Legislatures of eleven States, namely, all the Houses of
the Legislature of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura,
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal considered it desirable to
have a
uniform legislation enacted by Parliament for the imposition of a
ceiling on urban property for the country as a whole and in compliance with cl. ( 1) of Art. 252 of the Constitution passed a resolution to that effect.
One merit of such Central legislation is
that
--4
property owned by families anywhere in India can be aggregated
for
"-· valuation purposes, and the basis of acquisition and
compensation
can be uniform all over the country.
The Parliament accordingly, enacted the Urban
Land
(Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976. In the first instance, the Act came into
force on the date of its introduction in the Lok Sabha, i.e., January 28,
1976 and covered the Union Territories and the eleven States which
had already P.a.ssed the requisite resolution under Art. 252 (I) of
the Constitution, including the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
Subsequently, the Act was adopted, after passing resolutions under Art.
252 ( 1) of the Constitution by the State Legislature of Assam on
March 25, 1976, and those of Bihar on April 1,
1976, Madhya
Pradesh on September 9, 1976, Manipur on March 12,
1976,
13-330SCI/79
B
c
D
E
r
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
Meghalaya on April 7, 1976 and Rajasthan on March 9, 1976.
B
c
D
E
F
G
Thus, the Act is in force in seventeen States, and all the Union terri-
-<
~
tori~ in the country.
Schedule I to the Act lists out all States, irrespective of whether
or not t)ley have passed a resolution under Art. 252(1) authorising
the Parliament to enact a law imposing a ceiling on urban immovable
property, and the urban agglomerations in them having a population
of two lacs or more.
The ceiling limit of vacant land of metro-
'
politan areas of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras having a population exceeding ten lacs falling under category 'A' is 500 sq. mtrs.;
,--
urban agglomerations with a population of ten lacs and above, ex- ~
eluding the four metropolitan areas falling under
category
'B' is
J
1000 sq. mtrs.; urban agglomerations with a population between
three lacs and ten lacs falling under category 'C' is 1500 sq. mtrs.,
and urban agglomerations with a population between two lacs and
three lacs falling under category 'D' is 2000 sq. mtrs.
The schedule
does not mention the urban agglomerations having a population of
one lac and above; but if a particular State which passed a resolution under s. 252 (1), or if a State which subsequently adopts the
Act, wants to extend the Act to such areas, it could do so by a
notification under s. 2(n)(B) ors. 2(n)(A)(ii), as the case may be,
after obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government.
The primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976, 'the Act', as the long title and the
preamble show, is to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on
vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition or such land
in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings
on such land ~nd for matters connected therewith, with a view to
preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few
persons and speculation and profiteering therein, and with_ a view
to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance or the Directive Principl~ of Art. 39(b) and (c).
The legislation falls under entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution, which refers to : 'Land, that is to say, rights in
or over land, etc.' Admittedly, the State Legislatures alone are
competent to enact any legislation relating to land of every descrip-
'
B
lion including lands situate in urban areas.
The two Houses of the
Andhra Pradesh Legislature, however, passed the following resolution on April 8, 1972 and April 7, 1972 r~pectively :
"
UNION v. v. B. CHAUDHARY (Sen, !.)
811
• ..
"Resolution passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on
A
the 8th April, 1972.
RESOLUTION
Whereas this Assembly considers that there should be a ceiling
()n Urban Immovable Property;
•
And whereas the imposition of such a ceiling and acquisition of
urban immovable property in excess of that ceiling are matters with
respect to which Parliament has no power to make law for the State
-,. except as provided in Articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution of
Midia;
r
And whereas it appears to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative
" Assembly to be desirable that the aforesaid matters should be regulated in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Parliament by law;
•
Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 252 of the
Constitution, this Assembly hereby resolves that the
imposition
of
a ceiling on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling and all matters connected therewith or
ancillary and incidental thereto should be regulated in the State of
Anclhra Pradesh by Parliament by law."
The record shows that similar resolutions were passed by all the
remaining ten State Legislatures.
These resolutions vested
in the
Parliament the power to regulate in the aforesaid eleven States by
law the imposition of a ceiling on urban immovable property and
acquisition of such property in excess of this ceiling, as well as in
respect of 'all matters connected therewith and ancillary or inciden-
•
ta! thereto'.
The expression 'immovable property' takes in lands of
every description, i.e. agricultural lands, urban lands or of any other
•
~nd.
The High Court was of the view that the term 'legislature' in
Art. 252 (1) of the Constitution comprises both the Houses of Legislature i.e., the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council and
the Governor of the State.
It struck down the Act on the ground
that the Parliament was not competent to enact the impugned Act
for the State of Andhra Pradesh inasmuch as
the Governor of
Andhra Pradesh did not participate in the process of authorization
•
for the passing of the Act by the Parliament.
It observed,
since
two distinct terms 'Legislature' and 'Houses of Legislature' were used
in the same article they must, as a matter of construction, bear
different meanings. In that view, it went on to say that the passing
()f an Act in terms of the first part of Art. 252 ( 1) is a condition
,.
pre-requisite to the passing of a resolution by the House or Houses
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
of Legislature, as the case may be, entrusting to the Parliament the
power to legislate on a State subject, stating :
B
c
D
E
F
G
"In our opinion, the only way in which the Legislature
of a State, consisting of the Governar and one or two
Houses of Legislature, as the case may be, can express its
view that it is desirable to enact a law regulating a particular matter, is by enacting a law and passing an Act to that
effect.
Because it is difficult to conceive of the Legislature
consisting of the Governor and the House or Houses of
the Legisl~ture of a State acting in any manner than by
--
•
passing an enactment; no such Act has been passed by the
Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh consisting of
the Governor and the Houses of Legislature
of Andhra
Pradesh, expressing the desirability of having the matter of
imposition of a ceiling; on urban lands regulated by Parliament."
(Emphasis supplied)
We arc afraid, the construction placed by the High Court on
Art. 252(1)
c~nnot. be sustained.
Article 252(1) of the Constitution reads :
•
"If it appears to the Legislatures of two or more States
to be desirable that any of the matters with
respect to
which Parliament has no power to make
laws
for
the
States except as provided in articles 249 and 250 should be
regulated in such States by Parliament by law, and if resolutions to that effect are passed by all the Houses of the
Legislatures
of those States,
it shall be
lawful for
Parliament to pass an Act for regulating that matter
accordingly, and any Act so passed shall apply to such
States and to any other State by which it is adopted afterwards by resolution passed in that behalf by the House, or
where there are two Houses, by each of the Houses of the
Legislature of that State."
<
In order to appreciate the content, scope
and meaning of the
provisions of Art. 252, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the
Constitution. It appears in Part XI headed
'Relations
between . •
the Union and the States' and occurs
in Chapter I relating
to
'Legislative Relations', i.e., dealing with the distribution of legislaH
tive powers between the Union and the States. It wonld
appear
that our Constitution though broadly federal in structure, is modelled
on the British Parliamentary System, with unitary features.
Thus,
lL
UNION v. V. B. CHAUDHARY (Sen, !.)
813
•
~
·even apart from emergencies, the Pa.rliament may assume legislative
power (though temporarily) over any subject under Art. 249, by a
two-third vote that such legislation is necessary in 'the national
interest'.
While a Proclamation of Emergency under Art. 352 is in
operation the Parliament is also
competent
nnder
Art. 250
to
legislate with respect to any such matter in the State list.
Article 251
• makes it clear that the legislative power of the State legislatures to
make any law which they have power under the Constitution
to
make, is restricted by the provfsions of Arts. 249 and 250; but, if
-"tany law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provi-
~on of a law enacted by the Parliament, the law made by Parliament
r
shall prevail and the law made by the State legislature to the extent
' vf repugnancy shall not be valid so long as the law enacted by Parliament is effective and operative .
•
Reverting back to Art. 252, it will be noticed that this article corresponds to s. 103 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
It empowers
the Parliament
to legislate for
two or more States on any of the
matters with respect to which it has no power to make laws except as
provided in Arts. 249 and 250 .
..;
The effect of the passing of a resolution under cl. (1) of Art. 252
is that Parliament, which has no power to legislate with respect to
the matter which is the subject of the resolution, becomes entitled to
legislate with respect to it. On the other hand, the State legislature
ceases to have a power to make a law relating to that matter. While
Art. 263 provides for the creation of an Inter-State Council for effecting administrative co-ordination between the States in matters of com-
~ mon interest, Art. 252 provides the legislative means to attain that
object. After the enactment of a law by the Parliament under this
_..i:article, it is open to any of the other States to adopt the Act for such
-si_ate by merely passing a resolution to that effect in its Legislature,
•
but the operation of the Act in such State cannot be from a date
>
earlier than the date of the resolution passed in the Legislature adopting the Act. The question as to whether or not there is surrender by
the State Legislature of its power to legislate, and if so, to what
extent, must depend on the language of the resolution passed under
Art. 252 (1) : M/s. R.M.D.C. (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. The State
• of Mysore.(') Clause (2) specifically lays down that after Parliament
makes an Act in pursuance of the resolntion, such Act cannot be
amended or repealed by the State Legislature even though the matter
to which the Act of Parliament relates was inclnded in List II of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitntion.
(I) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 230.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.C.R.
The learned Attorney General rightly contends that the term 'legislature' must, in the context, mean the House or the Houses of Legislature, as the case may be and it does not include the Governor. It
is urged that the key to the interpretation of the first part of cl. ( 1) of
Art. 252 lies in the words 'to that effect' and they obviously refer to
the 'desirability' of Parliament making a law on a State subject.
It
" "
is pointed out that though the Governor is the component part of the •
State Legislature under Art. 168, he is precluded by the terms of Art.
158 ( 1) from being a member of either House of Parliament or of a
House of the Legislature of any State.
Not being a member of the ,--
House or Houses of Legislature of a State, as the case may be, th~
question of his participation, it is said, in the proceedings of the Stat•e ~
Legislature in passing a resolution under Art. 252(1) does not at all
arise.
He drew our attention to different provisions of the Constitution, and in particular !o proviso to Art. 368(2) which requires a rati-
,
fication by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States to a
Bill passed by the Parliament under Art.
368(1) in exercise of its
constituent powers to amend the Constitution. It is urged that
to
concede to the Governor the power to participate in the process of
authorization for the passing of a law by the Parliament on a State
subject under Art. 252(1), as the High Court had done, or to the process of ratification of a constitutional amendment by the State Legis1-
latures under proviso to Art. 368(f2) to a constitutional amendment by
the Parliament under Art. 368 ( !) , would create a dangerous situation
and would be destructive of our constitutional system based on the
Westminster model, under which the Governor is only the constitutional head of the State.
The contentions of the learned Attorney
General must, in our op,inion, he accepted.
In the State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh
•
of Darbhanga & Ors.(') in repelling the contention that the words,li..--
'law' and 'legislature' were deliberately used in Art. 31 ( 3) as a specml ,
safeguard, which, in order to ensure that no hasty or unjust expropriatory legislation is passed by a State Legislature, requires for .such
legislation the assent of both the Governor and the President, Patanajali Sastri C.J. observed :
"It is true that the "Legislature" of a State includes the
Governor iind that a bill passed by such Legislature cannot
become a law until it receives the Governor's assent. ..... .
The term "legislature" is not always used ih the Constitution as including the Governor, though article 168 makes
him a component Part of the State Legislature. In article
[19521 S.C.R. 889
•
• •
•
•
UNION v. v. B. CHAUDHARY (Sen, l.)
Bl 5
173, for instance, the_ word is cleEIY used in the sense of
the "Houses of legislature" and excludes the Governor.
There are other provisions also where the word is used in
contexts which exclude the Governor.
Similarly the word
'law' is sometime·s loosely used in referring to a bill. Article
31 ( 4), for i'nstance, speaks of a "bill" being reserved for
the President's assent "after it has been passed" by the
"legislature of a State" and of "the law so assented to." If
the expression "passed
by the legislature" were taken to
mean "passed by the Houses of the legislature and assented
to by the Governor" ....