A writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the 1972 Act prohibiting alienation of urban vacant lands as violative of Article 14. The court found all classifications reasonable and upheld the Act.
Writ petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
l . . ~ -
A. THAKOREBHAI KEVELBHAI PATEL v .. THE STATE OF GUJARAT November 7, 1974
~ .. '
| [A.N.RAY,C.J.,K. K.MATHEWANDN.L.UNTWALIA,JJ.J | ||
|---|---|---|
| B | Gujaat_Yacat_Lands_ in ljrban Are'! (ProhibitionofAlienation)Act,t9n_ _-Collslllutrona/rty--lfv,o/attVeofamcle_14,Cons[itutionofIndia. TJ:eGujaratVacant.ndsinUrbanArea(P_rohibitionofAlienation)At, _1972_1senactedtoproh1b1tthalienatiOnofcertamvacant lands in urban areas inth_eState.fGu1arat.Secuon._2_oftheActembodies a declaration that the Act.1sfogiVIng clfecttothepoltcyofheState towards securing theprincipl~ spcc1~~dm clauses .<b)and(c}ofart1cle 39ofthe Constitution. Section 4 proh1b1tstheahenallonofvacant landafterthe appointed day.Ithowever. |
|
exemptsoneplotofvacantlandowned by a personnotexceeding1000sq metres · andnotformingpartofa compactblO<:k.. Thetransfersinfll.vourofthe State Government,CentralGovernment, local authority, Government company statu- |
||
tory corporationsandcooperative house building societies are alsoexempt~.The StateGovernmenthnsbeenempowered by generalorspecial ordertoexempt anyareaoranynlienationfromalloranyofthe provisionsofthe Act.This issubjecttotherulesmadebythe State GowrnmenL Every order made:by the |
,, | |
| StateGovernmentandtheCollector exempting anyareaoralienation from any |
||
| D | oftho provisionsoftheActisrequiredtob.:laid before the State legislature. | |
TileLearnedCounselforthepetitioner concededthatinviewoftheproclamation ofemerencfundamentalrihtguarant~dunder Article 19isunder susension |
||
| gy g p. Itwa.,contcnd.:dthattheActoff ended Article 14 and that the Act wasnotdirect- lyrelatabletotheobjectofArticle39(b)aod(c)and, thetefore, Article 31C couldnotprotectit. |
||
| . HELD:(i)Itis notnCI."'!Ssarytotake recourseorticle31Cforu~hold |
||
| lng constitutional validityofthe Act asitdocsno.tmfrmge equal protectionof | ||
| 1:. | law guamntcedunderArtidc14ofthe ConstitUtiOn. Urbanarameans nny area whichucomprisedinthecityora municipal.Dorough. Surrounmgarea not exceeding 16 krru.ba.tobe fixed by a noulicat1onofhe~~ate_Go,emment. |
|
Bnotificationlimitof16kmshasbeen fi:ted in caseofbl·Cih:s hke Ahmeda |
||
| y., . .g.. bad,llarodaetc.butl~'l'>erlimitsofdistance have been pohfied mceofsmall municipal boroughs. When the limitofthe distance· outstdete.c1tyort<?W?J |
·;· | |
| area di tfcredfromplacetoplaceitwas not nece"Sarytofi:tthe hmttofpcrmtss!- : blcareaoftrunsfcrwith referencetotheva_luofhe_land.Itwasnet~':;l~~= ·~h:norexedienttodo!OFromthecrm1ssableltmttoftranfer thea o- |
||
| F | p . p _ ,.. lOgp:artofthecompactblockhdtobee:\duddns tt would havefled·lo010_ P<>li<ntionandmon~uvringsbypersons belongingtothesame amt Y um · [66HF;6720] |
l, |
| (..) ·r.. dth is a clear nexus between the •11 Thereisrea.onablecl:tsI.ICnonan ere . · h ut unequals as ObJectortheActnndtheclasslhCallon.TheActh.ts_nellfrJ:Act beingto equalnorha.itdiscrimin:l!c:tl b.:twe.:nNuals.ThehbJet -·iandsfrom its Preven.t aJi.,nationoC'ncnnt lnmls itri;:tlvexcl_udested.~~-b7!0'wner.;hip and 15 |
||
| G | 1 orcrnl!on. Since the objectoftheAclIStoultamatc Y n d transfer in favour Controlofthe materialr~~ource,tosut>ervethe commonJl00d Statutory Cor- ofG?vcrnm.:nt,LocalAuthorities,qovernmcntCotpafls!BuildingSocietie-• pornll?nshasb«nucludcd.FormattonfCooperaIVC Thepowerofthe State 0 obv10ulyastep(or[ullllmentoftheobJeCtof.thect.nlloranyoftherro- _o_vernmenttouemntanyareaoranyalienall!l0d{ 0h·ereasonstoberecord- "1100ofthe Acti,npowerwhichi!tobeexerct•e or'd ·lineisto be found irt t1'1endinfurthcrnceofthe objectofthe Act. ThS<br>11d•bythe Collector is |
|
| )f | t te ohjcctoftheAct.Theorderofexemptionto.ara'IClentific, lndu•trialor onty wherethel:tnditoheu<edforanyeducur'cone--tori~(urthercon- ommrcia!purpose".Theexerciseofthepower Y1 Thoordr•nrtobe rpllcdbyorovi,linun apoeal_to_theState _GovernmcnJlrvisoryofthe orders tee<.!beforetheStateughlaturewhichWillneth11Collcctllr.[672D-Hl tllemptionmadebytheStateGovernmentor 0 |
\· Jj\ ;. jt' :~·... |
668
SUPREME COUJ\T REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.l.
OluGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 467 of 1972. Petition Under Article· 32 of the Constitution· of India.
A
B. Sen and R. M. Mehta, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia, for the petitioner.
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, G. A. Shah and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. · B
The Judgment of the CoUrt. was delivered by
UNTWAW, 1 .-By is petition under Article 32 of the Consti· tution of India the petitioner has chal.lend the constitutional validity of the Gujm:at Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Probibltion of Alien:ation) Act, 1972, Gujarat Act No. 12 of 1972-hereinafter refentd to as the Act on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner granted under Arts. 14 and ·19 of the Constitution. In the writ petition the petitioner claims that he owns 9559 square yards -of land situate in District Bulsar, sub-district and Taluk.a Navsari. 'Village Kobilpore. He intends to sell the said land but is unable to do so because of the prohibition of alienation imposed under the Act.
Mr. B. Sen, learned counsel for ihe petitioner conceded, and in <JUI opinion riglitly, that since the Proclamation of Emergency is in .operation urider Article 358 of the Constitutio.n, fundamental right guaranteed under Article '19 is under suspension and therefdre 1ho Act could not be assailed for infr.action 'of Article 19 even if there 'be any. Counsel, however, submitted that it does violate the guarantee -of equat protection of the law and offends Article )4. In the Act under section 2 is embodied a declaration that the Act is for giving effect to the. policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in cliUiOS {b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution and consequently Article 3 t C would save the Act from attack on account of the tnfrao. tion ot Article 14. But it was s~bmitted that the Act is not directly relatable. to the obiect of Article 39(b) and (c) and hence Article 31C cannot protect .it In our opinion it is not necessary in this cue to take recourse to Article 31C for upholding the constitutional validity of the Act as it does not infringe the equal protection of law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
c
D
F
Learned counsel for the petitioner endeavoured to make out the foDowiog points for attacking the Act as being violative of Article 14 : .
_T, I:. PATEL Y. GUJAU.T. (Untwalia, J.) 669
"
Leatned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, the State of Glijatat, submitted thai none of the points. urged on behalf of the . petitioners has got any ubstance arid there is no violation of the equal prtion of ·law guar~teed under Article 14 of the Constitution ...
We s.ball first refer to and 'wherever necessary read some of the . Rlevant provisions of the Act. The Preamble of the Act indicate& that it. is llt1 Ad to prohibit alienation of cettaln vacant lands in urban .areas in tht State of Gujarat. The object of the Act is to prohibit alienatioD of tl2e vacant lands eo that ultimately the ownership and 0 c:ontrol of the material mources. of the Commutlity may be so distributed u best lo supoe the common good and may prevent tho concentration of wealth to the common dettiment. It may be pointed out here that the impugned ct ia a temporary one. Originally it waa to remain in force for on year but the Jreriod is being exteilded from time to time ia order to enable the State Legislature to pass the Urb&ni Property Ceilings Act. Prohibition of alienation by the Act is a preparatory measure for distribution of the material resources of the community,, The definition section of the Act is section 3. Oause (b) defines "Oty" to mean a CitY as constituted under the Bombay Provi.Jielal Munit:ipal Corporations Act, 1949. The definition of "Collector" includes certain other officers also as mentioned in clause (c). It is necessary to read cluse (d) which defines the "compact block" to mean "any block of vacant land in nn urhan area exceeding one F tbcUsand square me~ in exte1;1t, (whether owned by one person or jointly by more than one person or owne~ in contiguous parts separately by one or more members of a family unit) and whether or not divided by a private road, street, lane, footway, passage or drain, Jiattttal or artifieial."'Under clause (dd) "family unit" means an indivldUaT, his or her spouse and ·their children." aause (e) defines ''mnicipal borough" to mean "a municioal borouh a~ constituted or G deemed to be constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963!' It is necessary to read clauses {i) and '{j) of section 3 in full. (i) . .,urban area" means.-
__ , ., 1 -
| 670 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1975) 2S.C.R. |
||
|---|---|---|
| . (2) . ther relevantconsiderations, sationof.that.are~ 0~~OfficialGazette,. specify in bya notificatiOn m this behalf;and b'htbStateGovernmentmay,by anyothr aeaw 1 ffici;lGazettedeclaretobean notificatwn m0eregardtoanyproject-existingin urban area. bilimg pointeddayorhaving regardto that area.'?;aihenearfutureofany project thpossJbiblilhdinthatareawhereanysuchpro· bemg esta 15.e. ofthe State Government,basled · t · the opm10n ' ]CC •~l'k lytoleadtourbanisationofthatarea; toorts1e |
A B |
.,· |
| . ,; tld"means land inanurbanarea,a- U) a~~~~ornon-agricultural,otherthanlandonwbih nbuilding hasbeenorisbeinconstructed m ac!ordance with any law regulating such .C<;mS- truction andthelandappurenanttosuchbwldu tothe minimum extentreqmredundersuchIaw.or under the provisionsoftheBombay.TownPlanrung Act, 19 54,oranyothercorrespondmglawforthe time beinginforce. |
c | (r.: |
| _Explanation-for_Lhepurposes o~thlsclause any land which is vacantentheappomteddayshall bedeemedtobevacant land, notwithstandingthat the constructionofa building thereonhasbeencom- mencedonorafter the saidday.•• · |
E | |
| &ction 4 provides for prohibitionofalienation etc.inthese terms : ( 1)Noperson who owns any vacantlandshall,onorafter the appointed day, alienate such land by wayofsale, gift, exchange (mor!- g;tgc other than simple mortgage),leaseorotherwise,oreffectapar tionorcreate a trustofsuch land;and(lOYalienationmade,orpartt tion effected,ortrust createdincontraventionofthis section shallbe null and void : |
F | |
| · . Provided that nothing in this sub-section shallapplytothe .alicn:t- tionbyany personofanyoneplot o!vacantlandownedbylumnot exceeding one thousandsqu:~remetresinextentandnotforming p:ut ofa compactbl<><;kortothe effectingo(apartitionorcreationofll trustofany such plot. |
G | |
| ~~)Theprvisionsofsub-!icction(1)shallapplytoanyse, part1t10norcreatiOnoftrust,ofvacant landofanypersonin eJtecutlOn of_a decree?r_ordero~a.civilcourtor ofanyawardororderofany otherauthonty. Re-tnchon'onrristrationofd()Cuments have bt:en putinsection_S._Section6(1)saysthat"NothinginthisActshall applytoany transferofvacant landbyorinfavourof- (a)A StateGovernmentortheCentralGovernmentor a local authority; |
t:· tc. PATBL_ll, GVJARAT (Untwalia, /.) 671
A
B
Sub-section. (2) of section 6 .makes ·a dis.tinction ·in the applica'tion o.f sub-section ( 2) ·of.· sec'tion 4 ·in relation to the execution of a decree or an order .of a civil court in favour of the Goverilment or· the local C' authority. :Under. sub-section ( 1) of section 7 "the State Government, may, by a general or special order in writing and for reaso~ to be· recorded therein, exempl any area or. any alienation or other transfer of ·any vacant llll;ld from all or any of t\le provisions of this ·Act.." Under· sub-section (2), to avoid any barifship also, tbe State Government may, if it considers it necessacy so to do, exempt, by an · order D in writing, any alienation or other transfer Qf any vacant land from all or any o~ the proVisions of this Act. Subject to apy rules that may be ·made in this half or to any general or speciaJ, orders of the State Government, the Collector has been authorised under sub-section (3) of section 7 by crder in Writing, to exempt any alienation or other ·transfer of any vacant d from . the prov-Woos of this. Aet in case the 1 is .to be used for any educational, scientific, industrial qr E comJDerl purpoSe or for such other purpose as may be Dtescci~. "Prescribed .. means under· clause (g) of the third section 'tprescribed by ruleS ·made under this Ad." The State Government bas power under section 12 :to make .the rul~. Sub-section (4) enjoins that every <>rdet issued by the tate Government. under sub-Sections (1.) and (2) and by the Collector under section 3 sliall be laid before the State Legislature as soon as poSsible after its issue. Alienation etc. made ·on F .or after the 1st July,· 1972 but before the 8ppointed. _day under the Aet. bas also been affected under section 8 . .Sect1on 9 .gives a right to appeal against the order. of ~ Collector under sub-section (3) ~ section 7 to the State Government Within tbe prescribed period IU1d in the preScribed manner. 'l1le 'jurisdictln of tJte Ovil. Court ·}las ~ barred under section 10. A penalty hal been provi~ under section 11. The act overrides.other laws in view of tion· 1. · G It waold bel noticed .that the urban area means an1 area which· is 'colllPri,Sed in the City. or a MuntciOal BQrou2l. Stirrolindin!l distance Qf the City or municipal barough bas to . ..be fixed by a notification of the State Qover:ninent jn tbe Official Gazette having regard to the relevant considerations. The maximum distance of such an area cannot exceed sixteen kilometreS. We were infornied at the Bar 'bv the 'teamed Solicitor General that notifications hav.e beeri issued fiiitl~ the K maximum lir.nit of 16 kilometres in case of big .cities like Ahmeda6ad~ · 'Bitoda etc. but lesser limits of distances have been notffied in case of small municipal borougbs. Under the ·provisc)to 8ub-secdon ·<n of L319SupCI!7S 1
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
672
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
section 4 a person is not. prohibited from alienating one plot of vacant land owned by him not exoeeding 1000 sq. metres provided it does not form part of a compact block. When the limit of 'the distance outside the City or town area differed from place to place it was not necessary to fix the limit of permissible. area of transfer with refc· rcnc:l to the value of the land. It was neither feasible nor expedient to Jo so. From the permissible limit of transfer the area forming part of the compact block had to be excluded as it would have led to manipulations and manoeuvrings by persons belonging to the same family unit. The land belonging jointly to more than one person or ownec.l in contiguous part separately by one or more members of a family unit, which unit is a narrow one as defined in clause ( dd) of section 3, comes \lllder the definition of compact block. Then only the permissible limit of transfer does not apply.
Eltcluding the land on which any building has been or is being constructed in accordance with any law regulating such construction and only the permissible limit of the vacant land appertaining to it is a reasonable classification distingujshing the vacant land from the building land. The objec.t of the act is to prevent alienation of certain vacant lands and that being so it is rightly excluded the building lands from its operation.
It is plain that th~ ma.i.it object of the act being ultimately to dis· tribute the ownership and control of the material r~sources of the community as best to subserve the common good and to prevent concentration of wealth, a transfer in favour of the Government, local authorities, Government companies or Corporations had to be ex· eluded as such transfer could not possibly defeat the object of the Act, rather, it would give a fillip to it. Permitting transfers of vacant lands in favour of Cooperative Housing Building Societies is obviously a step for the fW,filment of the object of the Act. The Act cannot be held to be discriminatory on such grounds.
The power of the State Government under sub-section ( 1) of sec· tion 7 to exempt any area or any alienation or other transfer of vacant land from all or any of the prov1sions of the Act is a power which is to be exercised for the reasons to be recorded in the general or the special order and in furtherance of the object of the Act. The guideline is to be found in the obiect of the act i lf. The POWer under sub-section (2) has to be exercised by ·the State Government for avoiding any hardship. There is sufficient guideline for exemption in case of hardship which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of exemotion to be made bv the Co'Jector can only be in a case where the land .iS to be used for any educa• tional, scientific, industrial or commercial purposes, It has not been left open to the Collector to decide for what other. purpose he can grant the exemption. Such other purpose can be only that as may be prescribed bv the State Government by rules made under section 12 of the Act. Sub-section ( 4) of section 7 is a good safety valve. Tbe State Lelature will act as a Supervi3or of the orders of exemption
A
B
c
D
E
F
G.
H
T. K. PAtEL V. OUJARAT ( Untwalia, J.) 6 7 3
In our opinion, therefore, there is no. violation of the equal protection of law guarant~ under Art. 14 of the Constitution. Classifications are all reasonable and there is a clear nexus between the B ob}e:ct of the act and th~ clas$ific:ations. They have neither put unequnls as equals nor has discriminated between equal's.
ln. the result the writ PJtition fails and is dismissed with costs.
P.H.P.
Petition dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 violates the equal protection guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Thakorebhai Kevelbhai Patel
State of Gujarat
A.N. Ray
K.K. Mathew
N.L. Untwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
