LATAFAT ALI KHAN & Ors. v. THE STATE OF U. P

Sikri, C. J.-This petition under Art. 32 has been filed by the in Civil Appeals No. 2018-2020 of 1968, in three appellants In .this petition which we have just delivered judgment. vires of s. 6, cl. (xvii), of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act 1 of 1961)-bereinafter refer red to as the Act-and rule 4(4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceilings It is and Land Holdings Rules, 1961, have been challenged. urged that these provisions violate Art. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and the State 31 (!) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for contended that the impugned provisions are protected by Art. 3 IB of the Constitution, as the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is included in the Ninth Schedule as item 58. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, urged (!) that the impugned provisions have nothing to do with land reform, and (2) that rules made under the Act do not enjoy the protection of Art. 318. It is admitted that the land D E F G H 720 SUPllEME COUllT 11.EPOllTS [1971] SUPP. s.c.11.. in dispute is a 'holding' within s. 3(d) of the Act. The definition reads : B c D "Holding" l!leans the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, slrdar, asami of Gaon Samaj or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as. a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than· a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a 11ub lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the !eaie.'• sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers: it is conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 3 lB, further be scrutinised under difficult to say that ·Arts. 14, 19, etc. Rule 4(4) seems to us to be a rule which does not go beyond the powers conferred under s. 6(xvil), read with s. 44 of the Act. At any rate, s. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) are part of a scheme of land reform in U.P. and would be protected from attack under Art. 31 A of the Constitution. the rule must In the result we hold that s. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) aro valitl. In the circumstances there will" The petition accordingly fails. be no order as to costs. ~.P. S. Petition dismissed.