evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
SUKHDARSHAN SINGH ETC. ETC.

A v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

NOVEMBER 21, 1989

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, CJ., K.N. SINGH AND

N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.)

Rajasthun Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973: Section I5-Validity of-Held protected by Article 3J(A)( J)(a) and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

In these appeals on the question: whether section 15 (as amended) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia.

D Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was a legislation which was made for the purpose of bringing about agrarian reforms. The provisions of the Act including section 15 (as amended) are protected by Article 3l(A)(l)(a) of the Constitution.

E Therefore, the attack that section 15 of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution does not survive. The High Court was right in upholding the validity of section 15 of the Act. [247B; C-D]

Bansidharv. State of Rajasthan, [1989) 2 SCC 557, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 180- 83 of 1985 ..

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.1983 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. (Civil) Spl. Appeal Nos. 35 of 1982, 76, 268 and 270of 1983.

S.K. Bagga for the Appellants.

B.D. Shanna for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

SUKHDARSHAN SINGH v. STATE OFRAJASTHAN IVENKATARAMIAH, J.] 247

VENKA TARAMIAH, CJ. In these appeals the appellants have questioned the validity of Section 15 (as amended) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. It is not disputed that this Act was enacted by the Rajasthan Legislature for bringing about Agrarian Refonns in the State ofRajasthan. The validity of some of the provisions of the Act came. up for consideration before this Court in Bansidharv. State of Rajasthan, [1989] 2 SCC 557 before a Constitution Bench of this Court and this Court made declaration that the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was a legislation which was made for the purpose of bringing out Agrarian Refonn. In view of the above finding, it is clear that the provisions including s. 15 (as amended) contained therein are protected by Article 3 l(A)( l)(a) of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that some of these provisions contravened Articles 14 and 19.

The Grounds urged in respect of the appeal are that Section 15 (as amended) in question was violative of Article 14. Since the provisions of the Act as already stated are protected by Article 31(A)(l)(a), the attack does not survive. The High Court was therefore right in upholding the validity of Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court. These appeals fail and are dismissed. Interim orders passed if any, in these cases stand vacated.

T.N.A.

Appeals dismisse\J.
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND

OTHERS ETC. ETC. v.

MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.

MAY 1, 1989

[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND L.M. SHARMA, J.]

Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XL-Judgment inconsistent with law on certain items-Review of-Points of substantial public importance raised-Review petitions allowed.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137-Judgment-Review of-When permitted.

The petitioners-.revenue filed petitions for review of the judgment

and order dated December 20, 1986 passed by this Court. The respondent-manufacturers objected to t.he same on the ground that finality of D the judgment should be maintained and not disturbed lightly.

Allowing the Review petitions, this Court,

HELD: Prima facie an inconsistency is present in the judgment in respect of certain items when regard is had to the law laid down by this E Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1 SCR 347. Besides, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance and call for reconsideration. [8180 I

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 are recalled and the cases directed to be listed again for fresh consi- F deration. [8180]

Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1

...,·

SCR 347 relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos.

G 597 to 601 of1987 .

C.A. Nos, 3195/79, 4731-32/84, SLP No. 10108/80 and C.A.No. 793/84.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1989] 2 S.C.R.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1313 & 388/81, SLP No. 36/80, W.P. No. 192/77, SLP No. 4041/81 and C.A. No. 2269/80.

A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy and P. Parmeshwaran for the Peti-

"'

B ~~- ~

f.S. Nariman, Anil B. Diwan, R.K. Lukose, K.R. Nambir, A.N. Haksar, D.N. Mishra and P.K. Ram for the Respondent.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

PATHAK, CJ. After hearing learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 of which review is sought, should be recalled and the cases be heard again on the merits. It appears to us prima facie that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in the impugned judgment when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd., [1984] I S.C.R.

347. Inasmuch as the cases are being re-opened, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on the merits of the points raised in the cases. Objection was taken by the respondent manufacturers to the Review Petitions on the ground that the finality of the judgment E should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our opinion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance, and therefore call for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we allow the Review Petitions, and recall the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to , i.; F their original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs. ~

N.P.V Petitions allowed.
TEK CHAND v.

SAT NARAYAN

SEPTEMBER 14, 1989

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, CJ., K.N. SINGH AND

S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]

' Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act,. 1973: Sections I (3) and 13-Applicability of the Act-Fixed period of exemption from applicability-Exemption continues until suit is disposed of or adjudicated.

Applying the principle enunciated in Alina Ram Mittal v. Jshwar Singh Punia, [1988] 4 SCC 284, this Court dismissed the special leave petition, and,

D HELD: I.I The exemption would apply for a period .of ten years and will continue to be available until suit is disposed of or adjudicated. [121H]

1.2 If the petitioner fails to file an undertaking on usual terms, the decree shallbecome executable forthwith. li2iBY - E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5628 of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1988 of the Pun jab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 918 of 1987.

P .P. Rao and Shakeel Ahmed for the Petitioner.

S.C. Maheshwari, P.K. Chakravarti, Ms. Sandhya Goswami and V .K. Bhardwaj for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

We have heard this case arising out of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. We feel thai this case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji & Hon'ble

Mr. Justice Ranganathan in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A [1988] 4 S.C.C. 284. We respectfully agree with the principle enunciated in that decision. The special leave petition is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.C. Maheshwari states that the decree will not be executed till 30th April, 1990 subject to an undertaking on usual terms being filed in this Court within four weeks Ill from today. If the undertaking is not filed, the decree shall become executable forthwith.

G.N.

Petition dismissed.