TN I HE HIGH COUR r OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF APRIL 1998 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRR P SETHI,CHTEF JUSTICE AND THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE VGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NUMBERS 13882,1 8927j 8939,20778,22146,22220,22400.22571,22593 225 94,22879,22977 AND 23003 OF 1997 WP Nol 3882 /1997: Beteen, 1. Jamakandi Zalla Horata Samithi, Jamkdandi, RepJ,y its President, SriJatasaheb Bangi, No2099, Basava Nivas, Mudhol Road, Janikhandi 2. SnRavmdra, S10 SrLDhanawant Halingali 45 years, Ad’ocate, President. Bijapur District Mines Workers’ Union Ltd, at Jamkhandi 3. Sriiagdish Keshav Tungal. 42 years Advocatelegal Advisor Poer Looms Workers’Union, Banahatti,I q.Jamkhandi. /2/ 4. Sri.Ningappa Venkatappa Doddamani, 51 years. Advocate & Agriculturist, at Jamkhandi. 5. Sri.Shantappa Esappa Khidrapur, 47 years, Occ.Agriculturist as Social Worker & Former Pradhan Alagur Maadal Panchayat Alagur Thiuk, Jamkhandi 6. Shn L.N.Lalsangi, aged 49 years, Agriculturst, Rio Nandeshwar, Taluk.Atahni, Dist. Belgaum. 7.Shri Shankar Ramappa BilgE. aged 36 years, Agriculturst, Rio Haeugeri, Taluk:Rayabbag, Dist.Belgaum. 8.Shn.Venkatesh Shripad Phadue, aged. 85 years, Social Worker, Former Speaker of Jamkhandi Legislative Assembly, Rio Jamkhandi, Dist Bijapur 9 Shri Mallappa Satappa Kajagar, Aged 30 years Agriuculturist & Advocate Rio Mudhol Dist.Bijapur. 10 Shri Shankar Somashekhar Kori, aged 36 years, Trader, Rio Satti, Taluk,Atham, Dist. Bijapur. /3/ 11 ShriVenkappa Veerappa Pattar aged 69 years,Advocate, ExMinister of Kamatak& Rio Jamkhandi, DistBijapur. 12 Shri Hanamant Rudrappa Nirani, aged: 31 years, Agriculturist & Advocate Rio Inam-Hongal TalulcBilagz, Dist Bijapur Petitioners (By SnS.M.Chandrashakar, Advocate) And. 1. The State of Karnataka, Department ofRevenue, Rep.by its Secretary, Govt of Kamataka Multistoreyed Buildmg, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore560 001. 2. The Divisional Commissioner Belgaum. 3.The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur. Respondents (By Sri A.V Snmvasa Reddy, Additional Govt.Advocate) W.P,No.18927/1997: Between Ratna Kumar M. S!o N.Nemiraja Shetty, aged 53 ears, B-i. Housmg Colony, Bejai Ne Road, Mangalore D.K Petitioner (By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty K Advocate) 3 /4/ And. State of Karnataka, repby its Secretary, Department of Revenue, MS.Building. DrAmbedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001. Respondent (By SriSVijayashankar, Advocate General with SriAV Srinivasa Reddy Additional GovtAdvocate) WP No18939/1997: Between Tahika Rachana Horata Samithi, Savalagi, DistBijapur. Reptd By its Presidkent, SriRajkitmar SPati1, 5/0 Siddanagouda Patil Aged Major. Rio Savalagi, TqJamkhandi,Bijapur Dist, Petitioner (By SiiM.H.Sawkar, Advocate) And: 1. The State of Karnataka, Reptdby its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangaore1. 2 The State of Karnataka. Reptd. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, MS Building, Bangalore 1. I- / / 3 The Divisional Comissioner Belgaum Division, Belgaum 4 TheDeputy Commissioner Bijapur District. Bijapur Respondents (By Sri A V Srinivasa Reddy, Additional Govt Advocate) WPNo 20778 1997 3et4een: 1. SriD Narayandas, age: 58 years s”o flNarasimha Das, MLA, Resident of Harpanahalli. Dist.Bellarv. 2. SriS Veerappa, 55 years, sb Shanthabasappa, President, ZiUa Panchayat, Bellar3 R o Chigateri Harapanahafli Taluk, Bellary Dist 3.Smt.N.Kasturanima,Age. 50 years, W’o N.Manjunath, Presidkent, Town Panichayat, Harapanahaili Dist Bellarv 4 Sri C Chandrahsekhara Bhat Age: 37 years, Sb C .Prahalada Bhat, Advocate & Ex-Municipal Councillor Harapanahalli, Bellary Dist,, 5.SrLH.M.Virupakshaiah, 55 years, s oShambulingaiah, Advocate Harapanahalli, Dist.Bellary /6/ 6 SriA GfVishwanath, 36 years, sb Bettappa, President A,P.M,C. Harapanahalli, Dist.Bellary 7. Sri.K,M,Gurusiddaiah, 40 years, sb Prasadaiah, President’P,CA R & D Bank, Harapanahalli, DistBellary. 8,Moharnd Hanif, 40 years, sb Abdul Rahim,. General Secretary. Arjuman-E4slam Muslim, Harapanahalli, Dist.Bellary. 9 Sri.K.M.Vaniadevaiah, 60 years, sb Veeraiah, Director:KARNATAKA State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, R/o Harapanahalli, Dist.Bellary 10 Sn. S Sreeknshna, 55 years Sb Subbanna, Presidkent SC/ST Congress Cell; of Bellary District’ Rio Harapanahalli. Dist of Bellary. 11 .Sri.M.P,M.Revansiddaiah, 51 years, s/o M.P M Basavangoud, President Taluk Association of Working Journalist Harapanahalli, Bellary Dist 12,P,Venkatesh. 60 years, sb Krishnappa. President’ Tax Consultants Association, Harapanahalli, Dist.Bellary. 13.Sri.B.Bhemappa Setty, 45 years, President, Merchants Association, Harapanahalli, Bellary Dist. 6 /7/ 14 Deputy Abdul Rahiman, 36 years, s’o D.MdYusufSaheb, Advocate, & President, AnjumanF-Is1am, Harapanahalli, Dist, Bellary 15 K.Fakruddin Saheb, 50 years, s o Budin Saheb, Ex-President, VSSN & Ex-Town Municipal Council, Harapanahalli, Dist Bellary 16. Sn. Sadasivappa, 60 years, S o Dilleppa, Ex.Mandai Chairmarn R /o Duggavathi. Harapanahalli Think, Bellary Dist. Petitioners (By Sri K.SDesai & Harish Desai, Achocates) And: I The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary to Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 2 The Chief Secretary. Govt. of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 3 .The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary Dist Bellary, Respondents (By Sri.A V.Srmiasa Reddy, AddLGotAdvocat&) 7 /8/ Wf No22l46R 997 Between 1 SuM Siddapa, sb SnJGowdramanjappa, Taluk Panchayat President aged about 38 years, residing at Palavanahalli, Chatnahalli Post, Honalh Taluk, Dist Shimoga. 2 Sri T.Gangappa sb Sri.Thirukappa, Tahik Panchayat Member. aged about 45 years, residing at Surahonne, Honalli Taluk, Shimoga Dist 3 Sri Jagadish H K, sb Sri.RKantappa, Taluk Panchayat Member, aged about 33 years, residing at Cheelur, Pin-577 230, Honalli Taluk, Shimoga Dist. Petitioners (By SriVinod Prasad, Advocate) And: State of Karnataka, by its Secretary to Revenue Department, MS Building. Bangalore Respondents (By Sri,S Udayashankar Advocate General with SriA,V.Srmivasa ReddyAdd1 Govt Advocate) 8 /9/ WPNo 22220 1997. Betweerr Zilla Vingadana Virodhi Horatha Samitlu Channagiri, by its executive Members 1. Somalapur Nagaraj sb T S Ramappa, aged about 37 years, Rio Somalapur village Channagiri Tq,Shinioga Dist, 2. Bulasagara Siddarinappa s,o Smt.Gowramma aged about 40 years R/o Bulasagara villge, Channagiri Tq Shimoga Dist 3 BKNagaraj, s/o Kanyappa, aged about 32 years Rio Bussenahalh village, Agrabanahatti Post., Channagfri Tq Shimoga Dist, 4fRj\nnaiahs!o C MRangaiah, aged about 34 years Rio Channagira lown, Shimoga Dist Petitioners (By SiiMRRajagopa, Advocate) And: 1. State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore q /1/ 2.Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore- 1 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Shmioga District Slumoga Respondents By Sri A V Srinivasa Reddy Add1.GovtAdvocate) W.PNo22400 ‘1997: Between: 1 H BKrishna Murthy, Sb FLBKada Siddappa, aged about 45 years Member, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Surveyaarkere. Honnah Taluk, Shimoga District 2. Veereshappa H. s’O Thirthappa H aged about 26 years. Nehru Road, Nyamathi, Honnali E[ ahik. Shimoga District. Petitioners (By Sn AK Subbaiah Advocate) And The State of Kamataka, by its Secretary’. Department of Revenue M.Si3uiidmg, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001 Respondent (B SriSVijayakshaukar, Advocate General with Sri A V Srinivasa Reddy Addi Govt Ads) I /11/ WP,No2257 1/1997: Between I Prakaksh Shivappa Manakatti, Major. Occ:Agriculture & Secretary of Shiggaon Taluk Horata Samithi, Shiggaon, Dharwad Dist. 2.Srikant Gopalarao Udapi Major,Electrical Contractor, R/O Shiggaon, Shigaon Taluk, Dharwad District, 3 Jagadishagouda Bapugouda Policegoudar, Major. R/o Bannur village, Shiggaon Taluk, Dharwad Dist. 4.M Basavakraj, major, Rio Chikkamathur, Shiggaon Taluk, Dharwad District, petitioners (By Sri F,V,Patil, Achocate) And I,The State of Karnataka, rep.by the Secretary to Government. Reenue Department, M. S.Buildmg, BangaIore560 001. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad. 11 /12/ 3. MC.Kunnur, Major, M,LA. of Shiggaon Taluk, Shiggaon, Dharwad Dist Respondents (By SriSVijayashankar, Advocate General with Sri.AVSrinivasa Reedy, AddLGovt,Advocate for R1 & R-2. Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, Advocate for R-3) WP.No2293/97: Bet en: I Virupakshapa K sb Veerappa aged 50 years, 0cc:MLA, Post & TqSmdhanoor, Dist,Raichur 2Syed Mehaboob Hussain sb Mehaboobsab, age. major, President, Youth Congress(I), Sindhanoor Taluk & P0, Dist Raichur. 3 Virupakshappa, s/o Pampapathappa age:major. 0c:Director APMC & Secretary Naik Samaj R/o Sindhanor, Dist.Raichur. 4 Venkanagouda. s/oAmaregouda, Age:Major, 0cc:President, All India Trade Union Congress Sindhanoor.. Dist.Raichur. Petitioners (By SiiB.V.Acbaiya. Senior Counsel for Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate) /13/ And I State of Kamataka, Revenue Department by its Secretary, Vadhana Soudha, Bangalore. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District, Raichur 3 .Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha. Bangalore-560 001. esondents (By Sri.S Vijayashankar, Advocate General with Sri AN Sthñvasa Reddy, AddLGovt Advocate) W.P.No22594!1 997: Between: I Raichur District Chamber of Commerce & hdustry Lingasugur Road, Raichur, DistRaichur, Represented by its Secretary Sn Ramachandra Prabhu, sio N.R.Prabhu, age: 40 years. Rio Raichur Dist.Raichur 2 Ramachandra Reddy sjo Giovmda Reddy. Age 46 years 0cc:President, Raichur Zilla Panchayat, Raichur Dist, fl /14/ 3 Franna,s oSawarappa age45 years, President City Municipality Raichur Dist Raichur 4Abdul Samad Siddiqui s/oAbdul Basheer age 5 years Fx M P & Secretary, I. okashakthi, R/oRaicbur Dist Raichur, 5 Kalloor Mahadevappa s oSiddanna, Age 65 years, 0cc President & Advocate, I okshakthi, Raichur Distnct R/o Raichur 6 Kaslu Rao Patil s oChannabasappa age 70 years, Occ Freedom Fighters R/o Raichur 7 Shaik Rizawan s oSbaik Fareed age 48 years, 0cc President Raichur Taluka Janatha Dal P0 & Dist Raichur 8 Mohanied Omar s/oAbdul Rehman ExM1. A, age 60 year P0 & Dist Raichur /15/ 9. N.Bosraju, sb Subbaraju, age 55 years, Occ:President Raichur District Congree (I), P0 & Dist Raichur Petitioners (By Sri.B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate for Sri.Shivakumar Kalloor Advocate) And: 1 State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, by its Secretary Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Raichur. Dist,, Raichur 3 Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore. ResnrentS (By Sri.S.Vijayashankar, Advocate General with Sri.A.V. Srinivasa Reddv, Addi .Go’vtAdvocate) WPNo,22879 1997. Between Dayanath Kotian, S/c K B Kotian aged about 54 years. residing at KHB Coloy, Kunjatbbail Mangalorel 5. DX. Petitioner (By Sri.Sanath Kumar Shetty K.) 15 /i6/ 1 State of Karnataka, rep by its Secretary. DeptofRevenue, M SBuilding, Dr Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001. 2,Umon of India, by its Secretary to the Departmnent of Law Justice and Company Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. Respondents (By Sri S Vijaya Shankar Advocate General with Sn,A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, Add!,GoviAdvocate for R- 1) W P No,22977/1997’ Between, 1 Advocates Bar Association, Nargund, by its Presidken Shri B S Patil, Advocate, aged about 48 years. residkent of Nargund Takik, Nargund 2 Shri.M.GDandin, Aicu1tunsts & Social Worker, aged about 52 years resident of Nargund Taluk, Naragund. 3 Cotton Merchant Association (Regd) Naragund, by its President, Shn.C.H,Kori, aged about 50 years, Kori Complex, Naragund 16 /17/ 4ShriS.Vi3onageri, President Lions Club, Naragund Tatuk, Naragund. 5 Naragund Taluk Raitha Sanha (Regdj by its President, ShriSambhaji Kasid aged about 45 years, Gadiani, Naragund 6.ShiiF .Y.Doddamani, Member, TMC, Naragund & President, Naragund Taluka Dalit Vakuta Naragund tahik, Naragund. Petitioners (By Sn.Vinod Prasad & Sn.C.S ,Patil, Advocates) And State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Revenue Dept. Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. Respondent (By Sfti.S.Vijayasharikar, Advocate General with Sri A V Srmivasa Reddy, Addi Govt.Advocate) No.23003/1997 Between: Sn Raja Reddy DLsai S/o Shivaram Reddy Desai, Major. Athocate, R/o Yadgir Taluk:Yadgir. Dist.Gulbarga. Petitioner By Sri.Basava Prabhu S,Patil, Advocate> 17 /18/ I State of Karnataka by its Secretary Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore I 2 SriJHPatil Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnastaka. Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 3 Divisional Commissioner, Revenuuue Division, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga. 4 The Deputy Commisioner, Gulbarga District Gulbarga Respondents (By SiiS Vijayashankar. Advocae General with Sri AN Srinivasa Reddy ,Addl Govt,Athocate) W P.No,13882/1997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the formation of a Distnct Headquarters at Bagalkote. as per the decision dated 84 1997 taken b the Government of Kamataka is illegal. etc W.P No.18927’1997 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification No RD 42 LRD 87(P411) dated l66i 997 and Senal No 8 and its Column No.4 in Schedule4 and Senal No 7 and 18 /19/ its column No.2,3 and 4 in Schedule II appended thereto vide Annexure-A , etc. W P No l89391997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of lndia.praying to issue a writ of certiorari. quashing the Notification issued by the 2 Respondent vide No,RD 42 LRD 87 dated 166l997Annexure-A etc Wnt Petition No.20778/1997 is filed under Article 226 of the (onstitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Go ermuent to form a new District of Harapanahalli within the Bellar District itself with the Taluks of Hadagali. Haganbommanahalli, Koodaliga. for better administration in the interest ofjustice etc W.P.No.221461997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to issue a writ of certioran, quashing the Notification No,RD 42 LRD,87(P411) dated 28-1997 vide AnnexureF, in so far as it relates to Honalli Taluk of Shirnoga District, etc. W PNo.22220 ‘1997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the Notification dated 16 61997 as ivell as 2 Aug 1997 AnnexureA etc W P.No 22400/1997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, pra ing to issie a writ of certiorari quashing 19 /20/ the Notification No RD 42 1 RD87 (Pill), dated 2 August 1997 produced at Annexure-E as inoperative and void, etc. W P No 22571 ‘1997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification-Annexure-B, issued by Respondent No I in No RD 42 LRD 87(P-Il1) dated 2’ August,1997, in so far as it relates to the inclusion of Sliiggaon Taluk in Haven District, pursuant to Annexure-B, etc. W P No 22593/1997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the Notification-Annexure-A dated 4-8-1997 in NoR1) 42 1 RI) 87 (P-Ill) issued by Respondent No I in so far as it relates to mclusion of Sindhanoor Taluks in Koppal District is concernedetc. Writ Petition No 22594/1997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari quahing the Nnt’fication NnRD 42 1 PD R7(PITT) dated 4-8l 997 as Annexure-A issued by the Respondent No, 1 in so far as it relates to inclusion of Smdhanoor Taluks in Koppal District i concerned, etc WP,No,22879 /1997 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray ing to issue a writ of certiorari quashing /21/ the Notification No RD 32 I RD 87(P411) dated 2-8-1997 as per Annexure-A and Serial No7 and its column No.4 in Schedule -1 and Serial No.6 and its column No.2,3 and 4 in Schedule II appended thereto vide Anneure-A etc .P No 229’7’1997 is fflcd under Articles 226 and 227 uf the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification No.RD 42LRD.87(P)-IJl dated 2-8-1997 vide Annexure-D in so far as it relates to Naragund faluk of Dharwad District at Si No.6 in Schedule-I(for Dharwad District) and No.4 in Schedule-Il of the proposed Gadag District are concerned. etc. Writ Petition No23003’l 997 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 01 the Constitution of India , praying to issue a writ of mandamus. directing the Responents to bifurcate Gulbarga District in accordance with the recommendations made by the District Reorganisation Committees hc.aded by Sri. LM.Hundekar and Sn P ( Gaddigoudar etc I he Petitions having been heard and eserved for Orders, on this day, the CHIEF JUSTICE made the followng: ORDER I ORDER In all these Petitions, the main question requiring determination is the constitutiona1it and legal validity of the action of the Respondents in creating new Districts in the State of Kamataka under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act’). In W.P Nos 18927/97 and 22879/97,the Petitioners ha’ve challenged the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act under the constitutional scheme as enshrined in Part Xl read with Seventh Schedule of the Constitution In most of the Petitions, the impugned action is challenged on the alleged ground of nonconsideration of objections submitted by the objectors m response to the Notification issued in terms of Section 6 of the Act 2. Tn WRNo.23OO3,97. a prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the Respon&ntState for splitting Gulbarga District allegedly on the basis of recommendations made in that behalf Hoever. in WPNos 2257l’97 22593!97 and 22594/97 the action of the Respondents for inclusion of /3/ some Taluks in the newly carved Districts has been challenged for alleged violation of mandatory provision of Section 6 of the Act. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record in all the Writ Petitions 4 Iri W P Nos 18927197 and 22879/97 the Petitioners have alleged that the power to create new Districts or alter the extent of boundaries of any District enables the State Goxernment to change the boundaries, which is not permissible , as the subject of legislation does not fall in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution Entries 18 and 45 of the State List of the Se4enth Schedule are alleged to be not giving any scope for enacting legislation providing for alteration of boundaries of Districts or Division of Districts It is submitted that the power to alter the extent of boundaries of any District m any State is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union Parliament fallmg withm the ambit of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution The /24/ Petitioners have also challenged the validity of Section? of the States Reorganisation Act, by which such a power is reported to have been delegated m the State Legislature It is submitted in the alternative that even if Section 4 of the Act and Section 13 of the States Reorganisation Act was valid, the Notification dated 16 June, 1997 issued thereunder is unconstitutional being vaolati’e of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 29(1) of the Constitution.. Vide LA 1 filed in W P No 18927/97 the Petitioners have prayed for amendment of the Writ Petition to raise the plea regarding the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Act and Sections 13 and 15 of the States Reorganisation Act. 5 Part XI ofth Constitution deals with the distnbution of legislative powers between the Union and the States. Under Article 245 of the Constitution, Parliament has the plenary power to make laws for the whole or any part of the Union territory and the Legislature of a State for a whole or any part of the State with respect to the matters /25/ enumerated in List-I and List-Il respecti\clv of the Se’enth Schedule. Entry 45 of the State 1 1st authorises the State I egislature to make laws with respect to: Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation of revenues”. Entry 18 provides: Land. that is to say. rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the Gollection of rents transfer and alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans colomzation Under the aforesaid entries the State Legislature is competent to enact law relating to land and the land revenue adrnimstration in the State of Karnataka The Preamble to the Act clearly shows that it has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to land, the assessment and recovery of land revenue, the land revenue administration and other matters connected therewith Chapter 11 of the Act deals with the constitution and powers of the Revenue Officers, Section 3 pro’ides that the State shall be the Chief Controlling authority in all matters connected with land and land revenue administration under the Act Section 4 authorises the Government to divide the State into Divisions, Districts and Taluks comprising of Circles and Villages. Section 8 authorises the State Government to appoint a Deputy Commissioner to be mcharge of a District with authonty to exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on him under the Act or under any law for the time being in force Section 9 authonses the State Government to appoint Special Deputy Commissioner, Section 10 to appoint Assistant Commissioners; Sectiot1 11 Tahsildars and Section 12 Special Tabsildars for the aforesaid purposes The /27/ power to divide the State into Divisions Districts and Taluks is for the purposes of consolidating the law relating to land the assessment and recovery of land revenue and other matters connected therewith A perusal of various chapters of the Act clearly and unequivocally shows the purpose for which the Act has been enacted. 6. In AMARSARJIT SJNGH etc. vsSTATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1962 SC 1305) it was argued that the law relating to resumption of jagirs being beyond the jurisdiction of the State unconstitutional Legislature was and iirvalid. Such a plea was resisted on the ground that as the resumption of jagir was connected with the land the enactment made with respect to matters covered under Entries 18 and 45 was within the compctence of State LegisIature Such a argwnent of the petitioner wa rejected by the Apex Court holdmg But then it is urged that the amendment was not within the legislative competence of the /22/ Legislature of the State of Punjab and is null and void. The grounds therefor are thus stated in Petition No 82 of 1960:- This is nothing but a colourable legislation The State legislature has no authority to convert Central (soemment mto State Goernment and legislate on Central subject. The so- called jagir being not a grant by the State Government, the impugned Act has no application and the amended definition of State Government is a fraud on the Constitution” There i no substance m the contention that the Amendment Act is colourable and incompetent The subjectmatter of the legislation i resumption of jagirs Though the contention was raised in the petitions that this was not a topic within the competence of the State Legislature, as there was no such entry in List II /29/ to the Seventh Schedule, no argument was advanced in support of it And clearly it could not be as legislation on resumption of jagirs is one relating to lands, and land revenue, and would clearly fall under entries 18 and 45 of List II, which are as follows: Entry 18 Land , that is to say rights in or over land, land -tenure includmg the relation of landlord and tenant and the collection of rents transfer and alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans colonization’. Entry 45:- “Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation of revenues” If the principal legislation i’ antra wes it is difficult to see bow an amendment thereof with respect to matters properly pertaining to the subject-matter covered by it could be ultra vires. it is immaterial for the purpose of resumption whether the lands sought to be resumed were granted by the State of Punjab as it is now constituted or by any Government which preceded it, So long as the lands are within the State of Punjab, the legislature has fhll competence to enact a law providing for their resumption under entries 18 and 45 , Indeed if the words “made by or on behalf of the State Government” in S,2(lXa) bad been omitted in the principal Act and jagir defmed simply as any assignment of land revenue”, the legislation would have been intra vires, and in that case the state could have resumed the jagirs by whomsoever they might have been granted. But it close to add the words ‘made by or on behalf of the State Government”, and that gave, occasion for the contention that the legislation did not in fact reach jagirs granted by the British Government. Then, with a view to clarif the position, and set the controversy at rest, the legislature intervened and enacted the amendment Act of 1959, inserting /‘/ the impugned definition of ‘State Government’. We are unable to see what the lack of vires is under which this amendment suffers We must reject this contention also 7. We are satisfied that the subject matter of the Act is covered by Entries 18 and 45 of the State List, which comprehend the power to legislate regarding the matters connected with land, collection of rent thereof, transfer and alienation of such, settlement of disputes relating to land, prevention of encroachments of public lands, removal of such encroachments, restriction or extinction of existing interests in the lands, consolidation proceedings relating to several parts of the land, fixing a ceiling for the holding of the land, cancellation of leases granted by exRulers improvement of the land, etc The Act, therefore, cannot be held to be beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. There is no substance in W PNos 18927 97 and 22879/97 8 In WPNo23OO3/97 prayer is made for issuance of dire tion to the Respondents to bifurcate Gulbarga /32/