Civil Appeal Nos
189676 265 30077 and 29 3877 and 577
From the Judgment and Order dated 3 12 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos
163476 2068 2426 2477 2585 3026 2914 2918 2926 2965 3471 2517 2522 2581 2597 2401 2461 2462 2465 2469 2485 2507 2877 2949 3213 3469 2492 2509 2513 2514 2520 2523 2818 2935 2951 and 2936 of 1976 2509 2513 2514 2520 2523 2818 2932 2935 2936 and 295176 and 2492 of 1976
AND WRIT PETITION NO
350 OF 1977 Under Article 32 of the Constitution section V Gupte Attorney General of India 189676 UR Lalit 189676 R N Sachthey Girish Chandra K N Bhatt 189676 Miss A Subhashini for the Appellants in CAs 1896 and 265 300 77 for Respondent No 1 in WP 35077 and for the Union of India in CAs
29 3877 and Respondent No 4 in CA 577
V M Tarkunde K K Mehrish section M Jain and section K Jain for the Petitioner in WP 35077
T V section Narasimhachari and M section Ganesh for the Appellant in CAs
5 and 29 3877
K K Venugopal Addl
and section section Khanduja for Respondents 2 3 in WP 35077
B Kanta Rao for RR 1 50 53 66 68 83 85 91 93 95 97 100 and 112 114 in CA 189676
Vepa P Sarathi and B Parthasarathi for RR 28 and 53 in CA 27677
P Ram Reddy A V V Nair and Subodh Markendaya for the other appearing Respondents in CAs 279 280 84 286 and 29377
R K Mehta for Advocate General for the State of Orissa
Badridas Sharma for Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan
809 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
These appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated December 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 section 2441 c of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area District Municipalities Act 1956
A further question arises in a connected writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution whether 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 agglomerations of the cities and towns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in category C  and Ajmer Kota 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 article 252 of the Constitution passed a resolution to that effect
One merit of such Central legislation is that 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 ie January 28 1976 and covered the Union Territories and the eleven States which had already passed the requisite resolution under article 2521 of the Constitution including the State of Andhra Pradesh
Subsequently the Act was adopted after passing resolutions under article 2521 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 810 Meghalaya on April 7 1976 and Rajasthan on March 9 1976
Thus the Act is in force in seventeen States and all the Union territories in the country
Schedule I to the Act lists out all States irrespective of whether or not they have passed a resolution under article 2521 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 metropolitan areas of Delhi Bombay Calcutta and Madras having a population exceeding ten lacs falling under category A  is 500 sq
 urban agglomerations with a population of ten lacs and above excluding the four metropolitan areas falling under category B  is 1000 sq
 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
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 s2521 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 section 2nB or section 2nAii 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 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 article 39b 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 description 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 respectively 811 Resolution passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the 8th April 1972
RESOLUTION Whereas this Assembly considers that there should be a ceiling on 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 India 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 Andhra 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 incidental thereto 
The expression immovable property  takes in lands of every description ie agricultural lands urban lands or of any other kind
The High Court was of the view that the term legislature  in article 2521 of the Constitution comprises both the Houses of Legislature ie 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 if went on to say that the passing of an Act in terms of the first part of article 2521 is a condition pre requisite to the passing of a resolution by the House or Houses 812 of Legislature as the case may be entrusting to the Parliament the power to legislate on a State subject stating In our opinion the only way in which the Legislature of a State consisting of the Governor 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 Legislature 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 are afraid the construction placed by the High Court on article 252 1 cannot 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 article 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  ie dealing with the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States
It would appear that our Constitution though broadly federal in structure is modelled on the British Parliamentary System with unitary features
Thus 813 even apart from emergencies the Parliament may assume legislative power though temporarily over any subject under article 249 by a two third vote that such legislation is necessary in the national interest 
While a Proclamation of Emergency under article 352 is in operation the Parliament is also competent under article 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 provisions of articles 249 and 250 but if any law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law enacted by the Parliament the law made by Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the State legislature to the extent of repugnancy shall not be valid so long as the law enacted by Parliament is effective and operative
Reverting back to article 252 it will be noticed that this article corresponds to section 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 articles 249 and 250
The effect of the passing of a resolution under cl
1 of article 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 article 263 provides for the creation of an Inter State Council for effecting administrative co ordination between the States in matters of common interest article 252 provides the legislative means to attain that object
After the enactment of a law 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 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 article 252 1 Ms RMDC Mysore Private Ltd vs The State of Mysore1 Clause 2 specifically lays down that after Parliament makes an Act in pursuance of the resolution such Act cannot be amended or repealed by the State Legislature even though the matter to which the Act of Parliament relates was included in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution
814 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 article 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 article 168 he is precluded by the terms of article 1581 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 the question of his participation it is said in the proceedings of the State Legislature in passing a resolution under article 2521 does not at all arise
He drew our attention to different provisions of the Constitution and in particular to proviso to article 3682 which requires a ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one half of the States to a Bill passed by the Parliament under article 3681 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 article 2521 as the High Court had done or to the process of ratification of a constitutional amendment by the State Legislatures under proviso to article 3682 to a constitutional amendment by the Parliament under article 3681 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 opinion be accepted
In the State of Bihar vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga  Ors1 in repelling the contention that the words law  and legislature  were deliberately used in article 313 as a special 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 CJ observed It is true that the Legislature of a State includes the Governor and 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 in the Constitution as including the Governor though article 168 makes him a component Part of the State Legislature
In article 815 173 for instance the word is clearly 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 sometimes loosely used in referring to a bill
Article 314 for instance 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 then it would cease to be a bill and could not longer be reserved as such
Nor is the phrase law so assented to strictly accurate as the previous portion of the clause makes it clear that what is reserved for the President s assent and what he assents to is a bill and not a law
 This decision really clinches the whole issue
Article 2521 is in two parts
The first part merely recites about the desirability of the Parliament legislating on a subject in respect of which it has no power to make laws except as provided in Articles 249 and 250
This power to legislate is vested in the Parliament only if two or more State Legislatures think it desirable to have a law enacted by the Parliament on such matter in List II ie with respect to which the Parliament has no power to make laws for the States and all the Houses of the Legislatures of those States express such desire by passing a resolution to that effect
The Legislatures of those States should not only think it desirable and expedient but actually pass resolution that the Parliament should regulate the matter in those States in order to invest the Parliament with the power to legislate on such subject
The passing of such resolution by the State Legislatures of two or more States is a condition precedent for investing the Parliament with the power to make a law on that topic or matter and then only it shall be lawful for the Parliament to make a law for regulating that matter accordingly
The law so made or enacted by the Parliament under Art 2521 will apply only to those States whose Legislatures have passed resolutions under that provision and also to those States which have afterwards adopted the same by resolution passed by the Legislatures of such States in that behalf
It would appear that the first part of the article is only introductory the second is the operative part
The words 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 816 of common interest
Thus the word legislature  in the first part of article 2521 in the context in which it appears cannot mean the three component parts of the State Legislature contemplated by article 168 but only the House or Houses of Legislature as the case may be ie excluding the Governor
There is a clear distinction between an Act of legislature  a legislative act  and a resolution of the House 
The High Court has completely overlooked this distinction
The Governor is a constitutional head of the State Executive and has therefore to act on the advice of a Council of Ministers under article 163
The Governor is however made a component part of the State Legislature under article 164 just as the President is a part of Parliament
The Governor has a right of addressing and sending messages to under articles 175 and 176 and of summoning proroguing and dissolving under article 174 the State Legislature just as the President has in relation to Parliament
He also has a similar power of causing to be laid before the State Legislature the annual financial statement under article 2021 and of making demands for grants and recommending Money Bills  under article 207 1
In all these matters the Governor as the constitutional head of the State is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers
The Governor is however made a component part of the legislature of a State under article 168 because every Bill passed by the State legislature has to be reserved for his assent under article 200
Under that article the Governor can adopt one of the three courses namely i he may give his assent to it in which case the Bill becomes a law or ii he may except in the case of a Money Bill  withhold his assent therefrom in which case the Bill falls through unless the procedure indicated in the first proviso is followed ie return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration with a message or iii he may subject to Ministerial advice reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President in which case the President will adopt the procedure laid down in article 201
The first proviso to article 200 deals with a situation where the Governor is bound to give his assent when the Bill is reconsidered and passed by the Assembly
The second proviso to that article makes the reservation for consideration of the President obligatory where the Bill would if it became law  derogate from the powers of the High Court
Thus it is clear that a Bill passed by a State Assembly may become law if the Governor gives his assent to it or if having been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President it is assented to by the President
The Governor is therefore one of 817 the three components of a State legislature
The only other legislative function of the Governor is that of promulgating Ordinances under article 2131 when both the Houses of the State legislature or the Legislative Assembly where the legislature is unicameral are not in session
The Ordinance making power of the Governor is similar to that of the President and it is co extensive with the legislative powers of the States legislature
From an enumeration of the powers functions and duties of the Governor it is quite clear 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 article 2521 not being a member of the legislature under Art 158
The function assigned to the Governor under article 1761 of addressing the House or Houses of Legislature at the commencement of the first session of each year is strictly not a legislative function but the object of this address is to acquaint the members of the Houses with the policies and programmes of the Government
It is really a policy statement prepared by the Council of Ministers which the Governor has to read out
Then again the right of the Governor to send messages to the House or Houses of the Legislature under article 1752 with respect to a Bill then pending in the legislature or otherwise normally arises when the Governor withholds his assent to a Bill under article 200 or when the President for whose consideration a Bill is reserved for assent returns the Bill withholding his assent
As already stated a Bill  is something quite different from a resolution of the House  and therefore there is no question of the Governor sending any message under article 1752 with regard to a resolution pending before the House or Houses of the Legislature
Similar considerations must also arise with regard to ratification of a Bill passed by the Parliament in exercise of its constituent power of amending the Constitution under article 3681
In Jatin Chakravorty vs Sri Justice H K Bose1 D N Sinha J as he then was rightly negatived a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Act 1963 which amended article 217 of the Constitution raising the age of retirement of a Judge of the High Court from 60 to 62 years on the ground that no assent of the Governor in the State of West Bengal was taken observing A legislature discharges a variety of functions
The House has to be summoned or prorogued bills have to 818 be introduced voted upon and passed debates take place on important political questions ministers are interrogated and so on
The Governor though a limb of the legislature does not take part in every such action
While the Governor summons the House and may prorogue or dissolve it article 174 or address the legislature article 175 he does not sit in the House or vote upon any issue
When a Bill has been passed by the House or Houses article 200 requires that it shall be presented to the Governor for assent
The assent of the Governor is necessary only because the Constitution expressly requires it
Whenever the assent of the Governor is necessary or the assent of the President is necessary it is specifically provided for in the Constitution see Articles 31 A 200 201 and 304
The necessity of such assent cannot be implied where not specifically provided for Emphasis supplied Reverting to the constitutional requirement under proviso to article 3682 of a ratification by the legislatures of not less than one half of the States he observed So far as the State legislatures are concerned it requires that a resolution should be passed ratifying the amendment
Such a resolution requires voting and the Governor never votes upon any issue Emphasis supplied The interpretation placed by D N Sinha J upon the proviso to article 3602 in Jatin Chakravorty s case supra is in consonance with the constitutional system
Any other construction would result in an alarming situation as constitutional amendments by the Parliament under article 3681 could be held up by the Governor of a State
What is true of a ratification by the State legislatures under proviso to article 3682 is equally true of a resolution of the House or Houses of the Legislature under article 2521
The Governor in our view nowhere comes in the picture at all in these matters
It is however argued on behalf of the respondents that both the expressions legislature  as well as Houses of Legislature  are used in article 252 and therefore the term Legislature  must be understood in the sense in which it is used in article 168
In support of the contention it is said that it is the Legislature  which is surrendering its sovereign legislative functions and therefore it must be the legislature as defined in article 168 which should do that and not a part of the legislature
It is pointed out that article 168 does not use the words
819 unless the context otherwise requires 
It is accordingly urged that the words to that effect  in article 2521 mean that the legislature meaning the House or Houses of Legislature and the Governor is desirous that the Parliament should legislate on a State subject
Conceptually it is said to be the better interpretation of the term legislature  in the first part of article 2521
The respondents  contention in the present appeals is the same as that prevailed in the High Court
The point has already been dealt with by us at length
The contention cannot be accepted because it runs counter to this Court s decision in Kameshwar Singh s case supra
The absence of the words unless the context otherwise requires  in article 168 cannot control the meaning of the term legislature  in article 2521
It was fairly conceded at the Bar that even without these words a word or a phrase may have a different meaning if the context so requires than the meaning attached to it in the definition clause
The term legislature  in the context in which it appears can only mean the House or Houses of Legislature as the case may be
Learned counsel for the respondents tries to draw sustenance from section 103 of the Government of India Act 1935 which read If it appears to the Legislatures of two or more Provinces to be desirable that any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative List should be regulated in those Provinces by Act of the Federal Legislature and if resolutions to that effect are passed by all the Chambers of those Provincial Legislatures it shall be lawful for the Federal Legislature to pass an Act for regulating that matter accordingly but any Act so passed may as respects any Province to which it applies be amended or repealed by an Act of the Legislature of that Province
 It is submitted that when an Act passed by the Federal Legislature in respect of any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative List based on the resolution of the Legislatures of two or more Provinces could be amended or repealed by an Act of the Legislature of that Province the Governor had necessarily to be consulted at the stage of introduction of a resolution before the Legislature of that Province
There is a fallacy in the argument
The second part of section 103 of the Government of India Act is replaced by article 2522 of the Constitution which takes away the power of repeal from the State Legislature and entrusts it to the Parliament
When his attention was drawn to the fact that cl
2 of article 252 of the Constitution 820 differs from the provisions of section 103 of the Government of India Act 1935 the learned counsel did not pursue the point any further
Under article 2522 an amending or repealing Bill must go through the same procedure as prescribed for the original Bill ie by the process laid down in cl1 of article 252
The surrender or abdication of the legislative power of the State Legislature places the matter entirely in the hands of the Parliament
Next it is urged that the impugned Act passed by the Parliament was without legislative competence
It is said that the resolution as passed by the State Legislature gave authority to Parliament to legislate on a particular subject ie ceiling on immovable property  whereas the Parliament contrary to the resolution passed a law on a different subject ie ceiling on urban land 
It is pointed out that the Working Group with the Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Works Housing and Urban Development in its report dated July 25 1970 recommended that the ceiling on urban property should be imposed on the basis of the monetary value of properties and suggested a ceiling of 4 to 5 lacs of rupees
The Prime Minister forwarded the aforesaid report of the Working Group along with a draft Bill prepared on the basis of its recommendations to the Chief Ministers of various States with a view to securing concurrence and authorisation of the State legislatures under article 2521 to enable the Parliament for enacting a uniform law for the whole country
It was said that the State Legislature gave the authorisation to the Parliament on the distinct understanding that there was to be a law for the imposition of ceiling on the basis of valuation of immovable property
It is said that the authorisation was for ceiling on ownership of immovable property and not on area of land
Idea of ceiling it is said has been transferred from persons to objects
It is accordingly urged that the impugned Act insofar as it provides for ceiling for acquisition of vacant land by the State was not in conformity with the real intendment of the resolution
We are afraid the contention cannot be accepted
It is not disputed that the subject matter of Entry 18 List II of the Seventh Schedule ie land  covers land and buildings  and would therefore necessarily include vacant land 
The expression urban immovable property  may mean land and buildings  or buildings  or land 
It would take in lands of every description ie agricultural land urban land or any other kind and it necessarily includes vacant land
The Union of India before the High Court in its counter averred that before the Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha on January 821 28 1976 it was preceded by State wise deep consideration and consultation by the respective States including the State of Andhra Pradesh for a period of over five years starting from 1970
A Working Group was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary Ministry of Works Housing and Urban Development
The report of the Working Group shows that the proposal was to impose a ceiling on urban immovable property
In its report the said Working Group definedurban area  to include the area within the territorial limits of municipalities or other local bodies and also the peripheral area outside the said limits
Such inclusion of the peripheral limits in an urban area was accepted by the Government and a Model Bill prepared in pursuance thereof also contained such a definition
A copy of each of the report of the Working Group and the Model Bill referred to was placed on the table of the Parliament on December 15 1970 and March 22 1972 respectively
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 resolution under article 2521
The State Legislatures were therefore aware of the position when they passed a resolution authorising the Parliament to make a law in respect 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 section 2n of the impugned Act was therefore fully understood by the State Governments
In this Court the Union of India has placed on record an Approach Paper of the Study Group which indicated that the Parliament was faced with several practical difficulties to implement the proposal to place a ceiling on ownership of built up properties namely Firstly the valuation of such properties is very difficult task Secondly it varies from urban area to urban area and within the same area also and might result in inequitable application
Thirdly in our inflationary situation the values of properties quickly change from time to time
Fourthly investment by persons in housing and building is like other forms of investment and subject to certain restrictions primarily to prevent speculation needs to be encouraged to serve social purposes
Fifthly the management of properties which may vest with the government on account of any ceiling would pose serious problems perhaps a large number of properties may be in the form of slums or dilapidated 822 buildings and in respect of other types of houses it may not be possible to manage or dispose them of economically
 It was therefore suggested that ceiling in respect of built up properties was to be brought about through fiscal and other restrictive measures
It is but axiomatic that once the legislature of two or more States by a resolution in terms of article 2521 abdicate or surrender the area ie their power 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 article 2521 to read the resolution passed by the State Legislature subject to any restriction
The resolution contemplated under article 2521 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 law 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
There is no need to dilate on the question any further in this judgment as it can be better dealt with separately
It is sufficient for purposes of these appeals to say that when Parliament was invested with the power to legislate on the subject ie ceiling on immovable property  it was competent for the Parliament to enact the impugned Act ie a law relating to ceiling on urban land 
In our opinion therefore the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 was not applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh
In reaching that conclusion it proceeded on the wrong assumption that legislature  for purposes of article 2521 means the House or Houses of Legislature as the case may be and the Governor
In consequence whereof it felt into an error in holding that the State Legislature of Andhra Pradesh could not in law be regarded to have authorised the Parliament to enact the impugned Act in relation to that State due to the non participation of the Governor
There still remains the question whether the Act is not applicable to Warangal for the reason that there was no master plan prepared in conformity with section 2441 c iii of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area District Municipalities Act 1956
The section so far as material runs thus 2441 c The Master Plan shall include such maps and such descriptive matter as may be deemed necessary to illustrate the proposals and in particular i          823 ii         iii designate the land subject to compulsory acquisition under the powers in that behalf conferred by this Act or any other law for the time being in force
 The High Court has clearly erred in holding that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 cannot apply to the urban agglomeration of Warangal
In reaching that conclusion it observed that under section 2441 c iii the master plan must designate the land subject to compulsory acquisition under the powers in that behalf conferred by the Act or any other law for the time being in force otherwise the master plan prepared for the town cannot be treated to be a master plan as prepared in accordance with law
The view taken by the High Court is wholly unwarranted and proceeds on a misconception of the scheme of the Act
Section 3 of the Act provides that except as otherwise provided in the Act on and from the commencement thereof no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land  in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this Act applies under sub s2 of section 1
By section 41d the ceiling limit placed on such land situate in an urban agglomeration  falling within category D  specified in Schedule I is fixed at two thousand square metres
An urban agglomeration is made up of the main town together with the adjoining areas of urban growth and is treated as one urban spread
The expression vacant land  is defined in section 2q as meaning land not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture in an urban agglomeration but does not include certain categories thereof
The term urban land  is defined in section 2o as meaning o Urban land  means i any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan or ii In a case where there is no master plan or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality by whatever name called a notified area committee a town area committee a city and town committee a small town committee a cantonment board or a panchayat but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture 824 The expression urban agglomeration as defined in section 2n of the Act so far as material reads n urban agglomeration A in relation to any State or Union Territory specified in column 1 of Schedule I means i the urban agglomeration specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 thereof and includes the peripheral area specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 thereof and The urban agglomeration of Warangal is specified in Schedule I to the Act
The relevant entry reads States Towns Peripheral Category 1 2 3 4 1
Andhra Pradesh 5Warangal 1m 1Km
D It is quite clear that under the scheme of the Act the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations does not depend on the existence of a master plan
The definition of urban land  as contained in section 2o of the Act is in two parts namely 1 in a case where there is a master plan prepared under the law for the time being in force any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration 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 situated in any area included within the local limit of a municipality or other local authorities is regarded as such
The existence of a master plan within the meaning of section 2h is therefore not a sine qua non for the applicability of the Act to an urban agglomeration
The only difference is that where there is a master plan the Act extends to all lands situate within the local limits of a municipality or other local authority and also covers the peripheral area thereof but where there is no such master plan its applicability is confined to the municipal limits or the local area as the case may be
It is common ground that there was a master plan prepared for Warangal on October 26 1949
On September 7 1963 the Warangal Municipality resolved by a resolution to prepare a fresh master plan and on February 18 1966 the State Government directed that untill the new plan was prepared the old master plan should continue
There after a revised master plan was prepared by the Direc 825 tor of Town Planning Hyderabad after conducting physical and socio economic surveys and sent to the Municipal Council Warangal for adoption and approval in pursuance of its resolution dated September 7 1963
The Municipal Council by its resolution dated April 30 1969 approved the same with some modifications
The revised master plan was submitted by the Municipal Council Warangal to the State Government for sanction under section 244 sub s1 cld of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area District Municipalities Act 1956
On November 25 1971 the old master plan was revoked by the State Government and a new master plan sanctioned
The master plan contains proposals for areas required to be covered by section 244 sub s1 clc contiguous and adjacent to the municipal limits of Warangal which were under the jurisdiction of various gram panchayats and all such lands were deemed to be lands needed for public purpose within the meaning of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act 1309 Fasli and the Municipality could under section 251 of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area District Municipalities Act 1956 acquire the lands required for the implementation of for the master plan
The learned Attorney General has placed before us the relevant notifications
The word shall in cl
c of sub section
1 of section 244 of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area District Municipalities Act 1956 in its context and setting is directory
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 absence of such proposal for compulsory acquisition or a map or descriptive matter would not be tantamount to there being no master plan
A master plan may include proposals for development of areas required to be covered by section 244 sub section
1 clc 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
It is because the municipality has always the power under section 250 of the Act to acquire the land required for implementation of such scheme
It appears that the revised master plan prepared for Warangal does as it should provide for various development schemes
For ought we know it also designates the lands subject to compulsory acquisition
Even if it were not so the master plan prepared under section 244 sub section
1 cl
c did not cease to be a master plan prepared in accordance with law for the time being in force  within the meaning of section 2h of the Act in relation to the town of Warangal
The Act is therefore clearly applicable to the urban agglomerations of 826 Warangal and it extends not only to all the lands included within the local limits of the Warangal Municipality but also includes the peripheral areas specified ie one kilometre around such limits
In this group of cases there is a writ petition filed by Maharao Sabeb Bhim Singhji former ruler of the erstwhile princely State of Kota
It raises the question whether the Parliament had legislative competence to enact the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 in relation to the State of Rajasthan
The question involved is common to all the States which subsequently adopted the Act
The Bill after it was passed by both the Houses of Parliament received the assent of the President on February 17 1976
There is a schedule annexed to the Act and among the various States specified in the schedule is the State of Rajasthan with the urban agglomerations of Jaipur Jodhpur Ajmer Kota and Bikaner
Of these the cities of Jaipur and Jodhpur are declared to be agglomerations belonging to category C  while Ajmer Kota and Bikaner are placed in category D 
On March 9 1976 the State Legislature of Rajathan passed the following resolution adopting the Act Whereas the Legislature of Rajasthan State considers it expedient to provide for the imposition of a ceiling 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
And whereas the Parliament has no power to make laws for the States with regard to the matters aforesaid except as provided in Article 249 and 250 of the Constitution
And whereas this Legislature is of the opinion that aforesaid matter may be regulated in Rajasthan State by the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 33 of Central Act of 1976 enacted by the Parliament
Now therefore the Legislature of Rajasthan State passes the following resolution in pursuance of Article 252 clause 1  Rajasthan State adopts the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 33 of Central Act of 1976 for this State
 827 When the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on January 28 1976 it cannot be denied that the State of Rajasthan was not one of the eleven States which had passed a resolution under the first part of article 2521 and the question that arises is whether the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact a law in relation to that State
It is argued that the inclusion of the State of Rajasthan in the Schedule as one of the States specified to which the Act applies or the categorisation of the various cities and towns of that State including the town of Kota was non est
It is submitted that the legislature of the State of Rajasthan never authorised the Parliament to enact a law for the imposition of ceiling on immovable properties in that State and therefore the Act was still born in respect of the State of Rajasthan
It is accordingly urged that the Act being legislatively incompetent in so far as the State of Rajasthan was concerned it could not be adopted by a subsequent resolution passed by the State legislature of Rajasthan on March 9 1976
The learned Attorney General however tries to meet the challenge to the applicability of the Act to the State of Rajasthan from two aspects
He contends that the Parliament was undoubtedly invested with legislative competence to enact a law for the imposition of a ceiling on urban land for the State of Rajasthan both under article 250 as well as under article 252
First of all he points out that while there was a Proclamation of Emergency in force on February 17 1976 the Parliament had the power to legislate with respect to any matter in the State List under Article 250 which reads 250
1 Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter Parliament shall while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to any of the matter enumerated in the State List
2 A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the issue of a Proclamation of Emergency have been competent to make shall to the extent of the incompetency cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period
 The learned Attorney General is no doubt right in saying that if a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation under article 2501 the power of the Parliament extends to the making of laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to any of the matters 828 enumerated in the State List but the Act so passed will die out with the revocation of the Proclamation of Emergency by reason of Art 2502 on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period
That conclusion is inevitable from the words shall cease to have effect appearing in article 2502
Now the further difficulty in accepting the learned Attorney General s contention is that the Parliament never professed to act under Art 2501
Although he drew our attention to the second part of the preamble to the Act which reads AND WHEREAS Parliament has no power to make laws for the States with respect to the matters aforesaid except as provided in Articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution it is amply clear from the third part of the preamble which reads AND WHEREAS in pursuance of clause 1 of Article 252 of the Constitution resolutions have been passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of the States of Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Tripura Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those States by Parliament by law that the Parliament never intended to take recourse to its powers under article 2501 but proceeded to make such a law being clothed with its powers to legislate on the subject under article 2521
The Act was therefore a law enacted by the Parliament by virtue of its powers under article 2521
The Statement of objects and Reasons really places the matter beyond all doubt
Its material portion reads Statement of Objects and Reasons There has been a demand for imposing a ceiling on urban property also especially after the imposition of a ceiling on agricultural lands by the State Governments
With the growth of population and increases in urbanization a need for orderly development of urban areas has also been felt
It is therefore considered necessary to take measures for exercising social control over the scarce resource of urban land with a view to ensuring its equitable distribution amongst the various sections of society and also avoiding speculative transactions relating to land in urban agglomera 829 tions
With a view to ensuring uniformity in approach Government of India addressed the State Governments in this regard eleven States have so far passed resolutions under article 2521 of the Constitution empowering Parliament to undertake legislation in this behalf
The present proposal is to enact a Parliamentary legislation in pursuance of these resolutions Emphasis supplied There is also some difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned Attorney General on a matter of construction of article 2521
The question of adoption of a law made by the Parliament in respect of any of the matters in State List arises under the second part of article 2521 and is dependent upon the desirability  expressed by the legislatures of two or more States empowering the Parliament to make such a law under the first part thereof
We are inclined to think that some meaning must be given to the words any Act so passed
The power of adoption is therefore related to a law made under article 252 1 and cannot be exercised in respect of laws made by the Parliament under article 2501 while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force
Furthermore such a law in terms of article 2502 ceases to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate
The learned Attorney General however rightly contends in the alternative that the Parliament being invested with the power by resolutions passed under the first part of article 2521 by as many as eleven States to legislate on the subject ie to make a law for the imposition of a ceiling or immovable property it had the competence to so structure the Act that it was capable of being adopted by other States under the second part of article 2521
A fortiori the specification of the State of Rajasthan by which the Act may be adopted as well as the categorisation of the urban agglomerations therein to which it may apply had to be there
It is however strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that law made by the Parliament under article 2521 cannot be so designated as to extend to the States which had not sponsored a resolution
Emphasis is laid upon the words in such States and it is said that they mean in those States ie the sponsoring States
In support of the contention our attention was particularly drawn to the word Accordingly  and it is urged that the law passed by the Parliament under article 2521 must be restricted in its operation to those States ie to those States in which the Legislature passed a resolution
We are afraid the contention cannot be accepted
830 In our considered judgment the Parliament having been invested with powers to legislate on a State subject by resolutions passed by Legislatures of two or more States under article 2521 has plenary powers to make suitable legislation
It follows as a necessary corollary that the Act passed by the Parliament under article 2521 can be so structured as to be capable of being effectively adopted by the other States
Article 2521 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 article 2521 and at the same time it must be capable of beings adopted by other States which have not sponsored a resolution ie the non sponsoring States
The second part of article 2521 will be meaningful only if it were so interpreted otherwise it would be rendered wholly redundant
To illustrate if the part of the Schedule relating to the State of Rajasthan is treated as non est the schedule which forms part of the Act cannot be amended except under article 2522 ie in the like manner 
We fail to appreciate how two or more States can now pass a resolution for extension of the Act to the State of Rajasthan
In a law relating to the imposition of ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations throughout the territory of India it was competent for the Parliament under Entry 18 List II of Seventh Schedule is 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
The Act would automatically apply from the date of its application to those States which had passed the resolution in terms of the first part of article 2521 and would extend to the adopting States from the date of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of such States
The Parliament had therefore in fact and in law competence to legislate on the subject of the imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property and the Schedule to the Act cannot therefore be struck down in relation to the State of Rajasthan
It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Act had been enacted without the Schedule with an appropriate definition of an urban agglomeration  in section 2n in general terms making the law applicable to cities and towns having for example a population of one lac and above five lacs and above etc it would have been within the legislative competence of the Parliament
If that be so then it is inexplicable why simply because some of the areas in some of the States have been specified although their State legislatures had not sponsored any resolution the schedule in so far as those States are 831 concerned should be regarded as non est
If it is competent for the Parliament to make a general law under article 2521 to facilitate its adoption by other States it must logically follow that the Parliament could also pass the Act in its present form
We are of the opinion that the Act with the Schedule annexed became applicable in those States where the legislatures passed resolutions expressing the desirability  for the Parliament to make a law for the imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property and it lay dormant insofar as the other States were concerned
It became applicable to these other States from the date that their Houses of Legislatures adopted it
In that view we must hold that the impugned Act is not beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament insofar as the State of Rajasthan is concerned
In the result the appeals succeed and are allowed
The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is set aside and it is declared that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 is and has always been in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh wef
January 28 1976
It is further declared that the Act extends to the urban agglomerations of Warangal
It must for reasons already stated also be held that the Act applies to the State of Rajasthan wef March 9 1976
The remaining contentions advanced in the writ petition will be dealt with separately
There shall be no order as to costs in these proceedings
NVK Appeals allowed


Summary:
The State Legislatures of eleven States Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra orissa Punjab Tripura UP 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 article 252 of the Constitution passed 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 ie January 281976 and covered the Union Territories and the eleven States which had already passed the requisite resolution under article 2521 of the Constitution including the State of Andhra Pradesh
Subsequently the Act was adopted after passing resolutions under article 2521 of the Constitution by the State Legislatures of Assam Bihar 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 ceiling 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 39b and c
803 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  The State Legislatures alone are competent to enact any legislation relating 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 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 incidental thereto  In writ petitions filed by the respondents the High Court being of the view that the term legislature  in article 2521 of the Constitution comprises 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 participate in the process of authorisation for the passing of the Act by the Parliament
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 Pradesh is concerned
It also held that 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 section 2441 c of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area District Municipalities Act 1956
In the connected writ petition under article 32 the question raised was whether 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 Ajmer Kota 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
In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the term legislature  in article 2521 must in the context mean the House or the Houses of Legislature as the case may be and it does not include the Governor
The key to the interpretation of the first part of cl
1 of article 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 was pointed out that though the Governor is the component part of the State Legislature under article 168 he is precluded by the terms of article 1581 from being a member of either House of Parliament or of a House of Legislature of any State
Not being a member of the House or Houses of Legislature of a State as the case may be the question of his participation in the proceedings of the State Legislature in passing a resolution under article 2521 does not at all 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 article 2521 as the High Court had done or to the process of ratification of a constitutional amendment by the State Legislature under proviso to article 3682 to a constitutional amendment by the Parliament under article 3681 would create a dangerous situation and would be destructive of the constitutional system which is based on the Westminster model under which the Governor is only the constitutional head of the state
804 The Parliament being invested with the power by resolution passed under the first part of article 2521 by as many as eleven states to legislate on the subject ie to make a law for the imposition of a ceiling on immovable property it had the competence to so structure the Act that it was capable of being adopted by other States under the second part of article 2521
A fortiori the specification of the State of Rajasthan by which the Act may be adopted as well as the categorisation of the urban agglomerations therein to which it may apply had to be there
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petition  HELD 1 a Declared that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 a law enacted by the Parliament by virtue of its powers under Article 2521 is and has always been in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from January 28 1976
831D b Declared that the Act extends to the Urban agglomerations of Warangal
831D c The Act applies to the States of Rajasthan with effect from March 9 1976
831D 2 article 252 appears in Part XI headed Relations between the Union and the States  and occurs in Chapter I relating to Legislative Relations  ie dealing with the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States
Our constitution though broadly federal in structure is modelled on the British Parliamentary system with unitary features
Parliament may assume legislative powers though temporarily over any subject under article 249 by a two third vote that such legislation is necessary in the national interest  while a Proclamation of Emergency under article 352 is in operation Parliament is also competent under article 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 provisions of Articles 249 and 250 but if any law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law enacted by the Parliament the law made by Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the State legislature to the extent of repugnancy shall not be valid so long as the law enacted by Parliament is effective and operative
812H 813C 3
While article 263 provides for the creation of an Inter State Council for effecting administrative co ordination between the States in matters of common interest article 252 provides the legislative means to attain that object
813F 4
The effect of the passing of a resolution under cl1 of article 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 and the State legislature ceases to have a power to make a law relating to that matter
After the enactment of a law 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 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 article 2521
813G MS RMDC Mysore Private Ltd vs The State of Mysore referred to 6
Article 2522 specifically lays down that after Parliament makes an Act in pursuance of the resolution such Act cannot be amended or repealed by the State Legislature even though the matter to which the Act of Parliament relates was included in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution
813H 7 article 2521 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 the desirability of the Parliament legislating on a subject in respect of which it has no power to make laws except as provided in Articles 249 and 250
The words 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 article 2521 in the context in which it appears cannot mean the three component parts of the State Legislature contemplated by article 168 but only the House or Houses of Legislature as the case may be ie excluding the Governor
815D 815H 816A 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
816B 9
It is quite clear from 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 article 2521 he not being a member of the legislature under article 158
817C 10
The right of the Governor to send messages to the House or Houses of the Legislature under article 175 2 with respect to a Bill pending in the legislature or otherwise normally arises when the Governor withholds his assent to a Bill under article 200 or when the President for whose consideration a Bill is reserved for assent returns the Bill withholding his assent
817E 12
A Bill  is something quite different from a resolution of the House  and therefore there is no question of the Governor sending any message under article 175 2 with regard to a resolution pending before the House or Houses of the Legislature
817F 12
The constitutional requirement under proviso to article 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 requires that a resolution should be passed ratifying the amendment
Such a resolution requires voting and the Governor never votes upon any issue
818E Jatin Chakravarty vs Shri H K Bose AIR 1964 Cal
500 approved
What is true of a ratification by the State legislatures under proviso to article 3682 is equally true of a resolution of the House or Houses of the 806 Legislature under article 2521
The Governor nowhere comes in the picture at all in those matters
818F 14
The absence of the words unless the context otherwise requires  in article 168 cannot control the meaning of the term legislature  in article 2521
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 ie land  covers land and buildings  and would therefore necessarily include vacant land  The expression urban immovable property  may mean land and buildings  or buildings  or land 
It would take in lands of every description ie agricultural land urban land or any other kind and it necessarily includes vacant 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 respective 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 the 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 resolution under article 2521
821A C 17
The State Legislatures were therefore aware of the position when they passed a resolution authorising the Parliament to make a law in respect 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 section 2n of the impugned Act was therefore fully understood by the State Governments
821D E 18
It is but axiomatic that once the legislatures of two or more states by a resolution in terms of article 2521 abdicate or surrender the area ie their power 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 article 2521 to read the resolution passed by the State Legislature subject to any restriction
The resolution contemplated under article 2521 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 law 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 section 2o of the Act is in two parts namely i in a case where there is a master plan prepared under the 807 law for the time being in force any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration 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 section 2h is therefore not a sine 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 absence of such proposal for compulsory acquisition or a map or descriptive matter would not be tantamount to there being no master plan
A master plan may include proposals for development of areas required to be covered by section 244 sub s1 clc 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 section 250 of the Act to acquire the land required for implementation of such scheme
825E F 21
The revised master plan prepared for Warangal does as it should provide for various development schemes it also designates the lands subject to compulsory acquisition
Even if it were not so the master plan prepared under section 244 sub s1 clc did not cease to be a master plan prepared in accordance with the law for the time being in force  within the meaning of section 2h 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 Municipality but also includes the peripheral areas specified ie one kilometre around such limits
825G 826A 22
The Parliament having been invested with powers to legislate on a State subject by resolutions passed by Legislatures of two or more States under article 2521 has plenary powers to make suitable legislation
It follows as a necessary corollary that the Act passed by the Parliament under article 2521 can be so structured as to be capable of being effectively adopted by the other States
Article 2521 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 article 2521 and at the same time it must be capable of being adopted by other States which have not sponsored a resolution ie the non sponsoring States
The second part of article 2521 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 those States which had passed the resolution in terms of the first part of article 2521 and would extend to the adopting States from the date of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of such States
The Parliament had therefore in fact and in law competence to legislate on the subject of the imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property and the Schedule to the Act cannot therefore be struck down in relation to the State of Rajasthan
830F 808 24
In a law relating to the imposition of ceiling on vacant land in urban 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