Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LATAFAT ALI KHAN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U. P.

Decided
6 May 1971
Judges listed
S.M. SIKRI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 719 · 1971 INSC 146

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

Sikri, C. J.-This petition under Art. 32 has been filed by the three appellants in Civil Appeals No. 2018-2020 of 1968, in

p. 719, margin F

Opinion 2

vires of s. 6, cl. (xvii), of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act 1 of 1961)-bereinafter referred to as the Act-and rule 4(4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceilings and Land Holdings Rules, 1961, have been challenged. It is urged that these provisions violate Art. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and 31 (!) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the State contended that the impugned provisions are protected by Art. 3 IB of the Constitution, as the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is included in the Ninth Schedule as item 58. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, urged (!) that the impugned provisions have nothing to do with land reform, and (2) that rules made under the Act do not enjoy the protection of Art. 318. It is admitted that the land in dispute is a 'holding' within s. 3(d) of the Act. The definition reads :

pp. 719–720, margin F

"Holding" l!leans the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, slrdar, asami of Gaon Samaj or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as. a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than· a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a 11ublessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the !eaie.'•

p. 720

It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers: conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 3 lB, it is difficult to say that the rule must further be scrutinised under ·Arts. 14, 19, etc. Rule 4(4) seems to us to be a rule which does not go beyond the powers conferred under s. 6(xvil), read with s. 44 of the Act. At any rate, s. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) arepart of a scheme of land reform in U.P. and would be protected from attack under Art. 31 A of the Constitution.

p. 720, margin B

In the result we hold that s. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) aro valitl. The petition accordingly fails. In the circumstances there will" be no order as to costs. ~.P. S. Petition dismissed.

p. 720, margin D