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

SUKHDARSHAN SINGH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided
21 November 1989
Judges listed
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 246 · 1989 INSC 357

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.

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.

p. 247, margin A

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.

p. 247, margin C