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

In all these special leave petitions the common question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions ofthe Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended in 1974 (Act for short) cease to be applicable in all respects to the lands which came within the purview ofthe Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Ceiling Act for short). The lands involved in these matters are covered by the development plan by the Belgaum City Town Planning Authority as per the master plan for the said city and they are included and declared as urban agglomeration in the city of Hubli under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. In the year 1972 the Karnataka Legislature passed a resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution to the effect that imposing a ceiling on urban immovable property and the acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling limit for public purposes and all the matters connected therewith shall be regulated in the State by Parliament by law. The State Legislature thus divested itself of the legislative competence to enact laws in respect of subject-matter of the resolution. On April 1, 1974 the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act was enacted and under the said Act the tenant of the land covered by the Act is entitled to the grant of occupancy rights after making an application under the Act. This Act came into force with effect from January 2, 1985. But for the purpose of grant of occupancy rights April 1, 1974 was the relevant date. While so, in the year 1975 the Governor of Karnataka passed the Urban Agglomeration Ordinance where under all lands between the periphery of 8 kms. of the municipal limits of Hubli Dharwad were declared as urban agglomeration land. In the year 1976 the Parliament passed the Ceiling Act for imposition of ceiling on urban properties and the Act was made applicable to Karnataka also in view of the resolution passed by the State Government referred to above. The order of the Land Tribunal under the Act conferring occupancy rights on the tenants was challenged before the High Court contending that the lands involved in these cases were within the purview of the Ceiling Act and therefore the provisions of the Land Reforms Act had no application to such lands on the ground that the provisions of the State Act were repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act namely the Ceiling Act. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The owners preferred writ appeals and they were also dismissed by a common judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 2707 and 2361 of 1985 etc. The Division Bench held that there is no conflict between the two enactments in certain respects i.e., at least so far as the implementation of the provisions of Chapter III of the Act are concerned and that provisions of this Chapter of the Act do not cease to apply to the agricultural lands coming within the meaning of urban agglomeration in the Ceiling Act. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged in SLP (Civil) Nos. 16041-42 of 1988. Many of the similar writ petitions that were pending before the High Court were transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitions by a common order following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2707 of 1985 and connected matters. Several civil revision petitions filed by the land owners against the order of the Appellate Tribunal were dismissed by the High Court. Some of the special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court in the said civil revision petitions. Therefore all these special leave petitions can be disposed of by a common order

Reasoning: 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