NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND

(AIR 2011 SC 3081)

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Table of Contents

Rajiv Sarin and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.3

INTRODUCTION-......................................................................................................................3
Forum & Corum of Judges:.............................................................................................................5
Articles Involved:............................................................................................................................5
Subject MATTER:-..........................................................................................................................5
Facts of the Case:.............................................................................................................................6
Issues for Consideration-................................................................................................................7
Arguments by the Appellant:-..........................................................................................................7
Arguments by the Respondent:-......................................................................................................8
Judgment And Reasoning:...............................................................................................................9
Criqtiue:-10
Bibliography..11

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors, (1965) 1 SCR 82..7
Naveenchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 58..7
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569....8
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal (2008) 13 SCC 5.8

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND AND

ORS.
AIR 2011 SC 3087

INTRODUCTION
Law making is the most important task of the Parliament and the state Legislature. The
Constitution has well defined boundary for the legislative competence of both the Parliament and
the State legislature through the three lists in the 7 th Schedule. But there arises some conflict
between the Parliament and the state legislature when law is made with respect to the List III of
the Seventh Schedule. This is known as repugnancy.
The Constitution, however, itself provides in Article 254 that a law relating to a subject-matter
prescribed in List III enacted by the State Legislature would be valid only in the absence of any
contravention to a law made by the Parliament on the same subject-matter. Article 254 of the
Indian Constitution contains the mechanism for resolution of conflict between the Central and
the State legislations enacted with respect to any matter enumerated in the List III of the Seventh
Schedule. Thus a doctrine namely the Doctrine of Repugnancy which is employed to test as to
when and where a State made law turns repugnant to Parliamentary legislation.
Supreme Court in the present judgment has reiterated and further explained the doctrine of
Repugnancy with respect to the Land Acquisition laws and has clarified that the pith and
substance of an act has to be seen before making it void because of the legislative incompetence
or repugnancy. The court in the same judgment has clarified that though the compensation given
under an acquisition may not be equal to the market rate but it has to be justified and not illusory.
No compensation would make the Act amenable to judicial review.

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

FORUM & CORUM OF JUDGES:

The case was adjudged and decided by: S.H. Kapadia, C.J.I., Mukundakam Sharma, K.S.
Panicker Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar and Anil R. Dave, JJ.

ARTICLES INVOLVED:
Article 14, 19, 21, 31A, 254.
SUBJECT MATTER:Land Acquisition.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case is an appeal to judgement and order as passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants.
1) The present case deals with the proprietary right of the Appellants father in an estate
known as Beni Tal Fee Simple Estate situated in Pargana Chandpur, Tehsil Karan Prayag,
District Chamoli, Uttarakhand.
2) After the death of his father the Appellant inherited the proprietary rights of that estate.
3) By a Gazette Notification dated 21st December, 1977 under Section 4-A of the
KUMAUN and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "KUZALR Act") as amended by the U.P. Act No. 15 of 1978,
the rights, title and interest of every hissedar in respect of forest land situated in the
specified areas ceased with effect from 01st January, 1978 and the same were vested in
the State Government.
4) A notice thereby was served to the Appellant directing the same under the KUZALR Act,
and the Appellants demand for compensation was also not entertained.
5) Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a writ petition in High Court of Allahabad challenging the
constitutional validity of Sections 4A, 18(1)(cc) and 19(1)(b) of the KUZALR Act.
6) The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition.
Hence the present appeal.

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURTThe main issue of consideration in the present case was:
I. Whether the KUZALR Act as passed by the State of Kumaun and Uttarakhand is
repugnant to Section 37 and 84 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927?

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:1. The main aim of KUZALR Act was to provide for the acquisition of the rights, title and
interests of the hissedars by the State which was done in furtherance of abolition of the
Zamindari system and introduction of the land reforms. As KUZALR Act, 1960 in its
original form was made only for agrarian reforms, the private forest land was not included
in its ambit thus vesting of private forests in the State would not be by way of agrarian
reform. And thereby, the private forests so acquired under Section 4A of the challenged
Act would become property of the State which is objectionable and is not a part of
agrarian reform under Entry 18 List II and Entry 42 List III.
2. Rule 41 which talks of management of forest land by Gaon Sabha or any other local
authority established does not apply to the forest land as it is a provision mentioned under
Chapter IV which is not covered under Section 4A of the impugned Act.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:1. The first argument by the respondents was that the acquiring of private forest land forms
a part of agrarian reform, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent that the
vesting of forest land under the KUZALR Act are directly linked with the agrarian
reforms, as the land as the forest land so acquired is managed by the Goan Sabha or any
local authority for its proper use leading to the betterment of village economy and hence,
the legislation is in the nature of agrarian reforms.
2. Regarding the second contention of the Appellant the Counsel for the Respondent states
that Rule 41 of Chapter IV only lays down how the lands vested in the State including
forest and non-forest land is to be dealt with. The said rule definitely applies to the forest

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

lands as it has been specifically so mentioned in the said Rules as well which are vested
in the State under Section 4A of the KUZALR Act.

JUDGMENT AND REASONING:

The following observations were made by the apex court to reach the final judgement of the
case

The Supreme Court observed that as under the act both the Land and forests are managed
by the Gaon Sabha, a local authority for the betterment of the village, the provision of
acquisition of Forest Land under the KUZLAR Act is directly linked with the agrarian
reforms. Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1 said that for
agrarian reformsThere must be a proper planning of rural economy and conditions and a
body like the village Panchayat is best designed to promote rural welfare than individual
owners of small portions of lands.2 So, where the land acquired by the State is to be
transferred to a Goan Sabha or Village Panchayat for its management and use of land
leads to betterment of village economy, so the legislation is in nature of agrarian reforms.

Court further held that the test of repugnancy is to be applied only if both legislations fall
under the Concurrent List of 7th of the Constitution. For the repugnancy to be present
under 254 there are 2 requirements,
a. There has to be a confrontation between a central law and state law, and
b. The presidential assessment has to be held as non-existent.

In order to find out the subject matter of an enactment, even in the context of enactments
relatable to List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, passed by different legislatures,
the doctrine of pith and substance can be relied upon and would apply. The court mentioned that
there shall always be a presumption of constitutionality in favor of statute and while construing
such statute every legal permissible effort should be done keep the stature within the competence

1 (1965) 1 SCR 82
2 Supra1
7

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

of state legislature3. And when there is a challenge to legislative competence, the courts will try
to ascertain the pith and substance of such enactment on the scrutiny of such Act in question.
Applying the requirements of repugnancy as mentioned above, in the present the Supreme Court
observe that as both the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the KUZALR Act operate in two different
and distinct fields as the KUZALR Act relates to agrarian reforms and therefore it deals with
the "land" ,however, the Central Act i.e. the Indian Forests Act 1927 deal with "forests" and its
management, preservation and levy of royalty/fees on forest produce. Therefore no repugnancy
exists between the two and both these act are legally valid and constitutional. It was also held by
the Supreme Court that as no such repugnancy exists between the Central and State Law there
was no such requirement of Presidential assent and Article 254(2) has no application in the
instant case.
The test for determining such repugnancy is indeed to find out the dominant intention of the both
legislations and whether such dominant intentions of both the legislations are alike or different.
To put it simply, a provision in one legislation in order to give effect to its dominant purpose may
incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation, but such
partial or incidental coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different
purpose does not attract the doctrine of repugnancy.

Supreme Court in a 5 judges bench decision 4 observed that on a scrutiny of the Act in
question, if found, that the legislation is in substance one on a matter assigned to the
legislature enacting that statute, then that Act as a whole must be held to be valid
notwithstanding any incidental trenching upon matters beyond its competence i.e. on a
matter included in the list belonging to the other legislature, therefore the court in the
present matter observed that the KUZALR Act is a law principally related to Entry 18
(land) of List II read with Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution
and only incidentally entrenches upon forest i.e. Entry 17A of List III. This is so
because it is an enactment for agrarian reforms and so the basic matter is land. Since
the land happens to be forest land, it spills over and incidentally encroaches on Entry

3 Naveenchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 58

4 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
8

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

17A. Moreover the mere possibility of repugnancy will not make a State law invalid, for
repugnancy has to exist in fact and it must be shown clearly and sufficiently that the State
law is repugnant to the Union law5.

The pith and substance of the two laws does not operate and relate to the similar matter as
the KUZALR Act relating to agrarian reforms deals with the subject i.e. land; however,
the Central Act i.e. the Indian Forests Act 1927 deal with forests and its management,
preservation and levy of royalty/fee on forest produce so both are the two different entries
in the seventh schedule. KUZALR Act further provides for statutory vesting, i.e. statutory
taking over of property of hissedar, which happened to be 1st January of 1978, i.e. the
statutorily fixed date. Therefore, the forest land become the property of the State
Government and is dealt with like land, which is acquired under Section 4A of KUZALR
Act. This emerges from a reading of Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules itself. Moreover as
the Parliament does not intend to make a complete code for the acquisition and
management of the land, even if there exists some clashing both the laws can stand
together.

Further, the acquisition under the KUZALR Act is a case of "taking" upon payment of an
amount, which is not intended to be the market price of the rights acquired. On the other
hand, the power of acquisition under Section 37 of the Indian Forests Act 1927 i.e. the
Central Act is an acquisition based on the principles of public purpose and compensation.
Thus, the aforesaid Acts relate to different subject matters, and the acquisitions
mentioned therein are conceptually different.

The appeal in the present case was partly allowed and the Court said that in any case
compensation cannot be denied as the KUZALR Act itself provides for compensation and any
attempt to do away with the compensation would make such order amenable to judicial review.

5 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal (2008) 13 SCC 5

9

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

CRITIQUE:The framers of our Constitution made the Constitution with biase towards the Center . But our
framers were fully sympathetic towards the provincial aspirations and autonomy. That is why
they established Supreme Court with the hope that the future evolution of the Indian Constitution
would be done in such a manner that justice is done to both the center and state legislature. The
court in the process of interpretation of the Constitution may sometimes feel it necessary to
strengthen the center while at other times may uphold the provincial cause.
The present case is an example of such a scenario that merely because the State made legislation
incidentally entrenches upon a part covered under the Central made law it cannot be held
repugnant and ultra vires to the powers granted to the State by the Constitution. The main object
of the impugned legislation has to be looked at and taken into account which was done so the
instant case and the State Law was held not to be repugnant to the Central Law.
Thus the present judgment is of utmost importance as it has made the jurisprudence regarding the
doctrine of Repugnancy more clear than before and thus helps us to understand that mere
legislative incompetence or infringement does not make an Act void, but the intention and the
real subject matter has to be taken into account.

10

RAJIV SAREEN V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Books:
V.N. Shuklas Constitution of India- Mahendra P. Singh

M.P. Jain- Indian Constitution Law

Constitution of India- PM Bakshi

D.D. Basu Introduction to the Constitution of India.

Websites:

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1214980/?type=print

http://www.lawker.in/2014/11/kerala-high-court-upholds.html

http://www.manupatrafast.in/

http://www.rajdeepandjoyeeta.com/recent-constitution-bench-cases/172-rajiv-sarin-a-anrvs-state-of-uttarakhand-a-ors.html

11