Case: Krishan Bhimrao Deshpande Vs. Land Tribunal Dharwad and Others

when an area is notified as an urban agglomeration under Section 2(n)(A)(ii), the Central Act would apply to land situate in such area and the Andhra Pradesh Act would cease to have application, but by that time the Andhra Pradesh Act would have already operated to determine the ceiling on holding of land falling within the definition of Section 3(j) and situate within such area. It is therefore not possible to uphold the contention of the landholders that the Andhra Pradesh Act is ultra vires and void as being outside the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature." The above observations throw a flood of light on the question involved before us. It can be seen that entire power to legislate in respect of several matters falling under wide scope of Entry 18 List II is not transferred. The power transferred is only in respect of imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property. There can be several topics in respect of the subject matters of regulatory legislations governing the lands or other immovable properties. The imposition of ceiling on owning property is one such topic and there can be laws regulating ceiling on owning the property, relationship of lessor and lessee, payment of rent, manner of granting the lease, conferment of ownership on the lessee ect. It is the concept of a welfare State which is the underlying object in such welfare legislations. When viewed rom that angle it is axiomatic that imposition of ceiling on urban land is a distinct and independent subject as compared to imposition of ceiling on owning or holding agricultural land or any other kind of property which do not attract the Urban Ceiling Act. Likewise it cannot be said that the pith and substance of the law governing the conferment of ownership of land on the tenant is a law regulating the imposition of ceiling on land holding. Equally it cannot be said that the pith and substance of the law imposing the ceiling on land holding covers the subject of conferring ownership of land on the tenant. These are two distinct powers and therefore the law-making competence can be in two different legislative bodies. Consequently it is difficult to hold that the provisions of Chapter III of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act are outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature. In Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietory) Ltd., v. State of West Bengal 1962 AIR(SC) 1044) this Court observed as under. "The entries in the three Lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation: they demarcate the area over which the appropriate Legislatures can operate. It is also well settled that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries. But some of the entire in the different Lists or in the same Lists may overlap and sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the duty of this Court to reconcile the entire and bring about harmony between them." * 8. It is well settled that the legislative power of the State has to be reconciled with that of the Parliament and that in their respective fields each is supreme. Even assuming that the State enactment has same effect on the subject-matter falling within the Parliaments legislative competence, that by itself will not render such law invalid or inoperative. In Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 1972 (2) SCC 218 : 1972 AIR(SC) 2301) this Court held as under: (SCC p. 229, para 28). "It seems to; us clear that the State has legislative competence to legislate on Entry 18, List II and Entry 42, List III. This power cannot be denied on the ground that it; has some effect on an industry controlled under Entry 52, List I. Effect is not the same thing as subject-matter. If a State Act, otherwise valid, has effect on a matter in List I it does not cease to be a legislation with respect to an entry in List II or List III" * However, in the instant case, we are clearly of the view that there is no conflict. The imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property is an independent topic and cannot be construed as to nullify the other subject left in the domain of the State Legislature under Entry 18; inasmuch as imposition of ceiling as a distinct and separately identifiable subject and does not cover the other measures such as regulation of landlord and tenant in respect of which the State Legislature has competence to legislate. Thus the one topic that is transferred in the resolution passed under Article 252 is distinct and separately identifiable and does not include the remaining topics under Entry 18 in respect of which the State alone has the power to legislate. An examination of the various provisions of the State Act makes this aspect clear. The object underlying the Act is to make a uniform law in the State of Karnataka relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings etc. Chapter II of the Act contains general provisions regarding tenancy, deemed tenancy, regulation of relationship between landlord and tenant etc. Sections 44 to 62 of Chapter III provide for vesting of tenanted lands in the State Government with effect from March 1, 1974 and conferment of occupancy rights on the tenants. Chapter V controls the eligibility to purchase or possess agricultural lands. Chapter VI to XI have many other provisions regarding agrarian reforms. We, however, find a a ceiling provision under Section 45(2) providing for computation of the area in respect of which the tenant may; be granted occupancy rights. But it is clear that ceiling on the area in this context is only for the purpose of Section 45. These are all topics regarding the conferment of occupancy rights on the respective tenants and they do not in any way conflict with the subject-matter transferred to the Parliament by the resolution passed under Section 252.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. A plain reading of the above provisions in the background of the objects underlying these two enactments clearly shows that the two Acts operate in two different fields to a large extent8. It is well settled that the legislative power of the State has to be reconciled with that of the Parliament and that in their respective fields each is supreme. Even assuming that the State enactment has same effect on the subject-matter falling within the Parliaments legislative competence, that by itself will not render such law invalid or inoperativeHowever, in the instant case, we are clearly of the view that there is no conflict. The imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property is an independent topic and cannot be construed as to nullify the other subject left in the domain of the State Legislature under Entry 18; inasmuch as imposition of ceiling as a distinct and separately identifiable subject and does not cover the other measures such as regulation of landlord and tenant in respect of which the State Legislature has competence to legislate. Thus the one topic that is transferred in the resolution passed under Article 252 is distinct and separately identifiable and does not include the remaining topics under Entry 18 in respect of which the State alone has the power to legislate. An examination of the various provisions of the State Act makes this aspect clear. The object underlying the Act is to make a uniform law in the State of Karnataka relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings etc. Chapter II of the Act contains general provisions regarding tenancy, deemed tenancy, regulation of relationship between landlord and tenant etc. Sections 44 to 62 of Chapter III provide for vesting of tenanted lands in the State Government with effect from March 1, 1974 and conferment of occupancy rights on the tenants. Chapter V controls the eligibility to purchase or possess agricultural lands. Chapter VI to XI have many other provisions regarding agrarian reforms. We, however, find a a ceiling provision under Section 45(2) providing for computation of the area in respect of which the tenant may; be granted occupancy rights. But it is clear that ceiling on the area in this context is only for the purpose of Section 45. These are all topics regarding the conferment of occupancy rights on the respective tenants and they do not in any way conflict with the subject-matter transferred to the Parliament by the resolution passed under Section 252