Skip to content


Harisingh Vs. the State of Raj and Two ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 672 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1979WLN(UC)30
AppellantHarisingh
RespondentThe State of Raj and Two ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases Referred(Sojjan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan). All
Excerpt:
.....act, 1976--section 15(2) act included in ninth schedule--its validity cannot be challenged;the provisions of rajasthan act no. 8 of 1976, which is included in ninth schedule to the constitution cannot be challenged on the ground of contravention of any of the provisions contained in part iii of the constitution. the validity of rajasthan act no. 8 of 1976 has been challenged on the basis of contravention of the provisions of articles 31(3) and 14 which fall in part iii of the constitution and, therefore, the said challenge cannot be entertained in article 31(b) of the constitution.;writ dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] ..........has been included in the ninth schedule to the constitution and is protected by article 31b of the constitution. article 31b provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 31a, none of the acts and regulations specified in the ninth schedule nor any of the provisions there of shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground that such act, regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the lights conferred by any of the provisions of part iii of the constitution. the result is that provisions of the rajasthan act no. 8 of 1976, which is included in ninth schedule to the constitution cannot be challenged on the ground of contravention of any of the provisions contained in part iii of the.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Harisingh, has challenged the order dated 19th June, 1976 passed by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ceiling Act').

2. The petitioner holds certain lands in village Hariyadana, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur Proceedings for determination of surpuls land in excess of the ceiling area were started against the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur under the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. In the said proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, passed an order dated 8th June, 1971 whereby he held that the petitioner was not in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to village Hariyadana and the said proceedings were dropped. In 1973, the Ceiling Act was enacted and Section 15 (2) of the said Act, as originally enacted, provided for the reopening of orders passed in proceedings taken under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act within a period of three years from the commencement of the Ceiling Act and for redetermination of the surplus land in excess of the ceiling area in accordance with the provisions of Chapter (III-B of the Tenancy Act. The Ceiling Act was amended by the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976, Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976, whereby Section 15 (2) was substituted and the time limit of three years prescribed for re-opening of orders was raised to five years from the date of the commencement of the Ceiling Act and apart from the ground mentioned in Section 15 (2), as originally enacted, it was further provided that the order could be reopened also on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to the notice of the State Govt.

3. After the coming into force of the Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976, the State Government passed the order dated 9th June, 1976 whereby it reopened the proceedings against the petitioner on the view that the order dated 8th June, 1971 pissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, had been passed in contravention to the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act and the State Government directed the Additional Collector to decide afresh the said proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 9th June, 1976, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976 whereby Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Ceiling Act was substituted and the time limit of three years prescribed by the parent Act was raised to five years The grounds on which the validity of Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976 has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are the same as those urged in Civil Writ Petition No. 570 of 1978 (Sojjan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan). All these contentions have been rejected by me in my Judgment in the said writ petition. For the same reasons, the challenge to the validity of Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976 fails in the present case.

5. In addition to the reasons given by me in my judgment in Sajjan Singh's Case, there is one additional reason in the present case for rejecting the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976 is unconstitutional and void as it violates Article 31(3) and 14 of the Constitution. The Rajasthan Act No. 6 of 1976 is an Act which has been included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution and is protected by Article 31B of the Constitution. Article 31B provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions there of shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the lights conferred by any of the provisions of part III of the Constitution. The result is that provisions of the Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976, which is included in Ninth Schedule to the Constitution cannot be challenged on the ground of contravention of any of the provisions contained in part III of the Constitution. The validity of Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1976 has been challenged on the basis of contravention of the provisions of Articles 31(3) and 14 which fall in Part III of the Constitution and. therefore, the said challenge cannot be entertained in view of the provisions contained in Article 31(B) of the Constitution.

6. The result is that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //