What did the Supreme Court decide in Kunj Behari Lal Butail?

The Court struck down the proviso to Rule 3(1) that barred transfer of land subservient to tea plantations. It was beyond the Act’s rule-making power.

Why was the rule called ultra vires?

Because the parent Act excluded tea estates and did not authorise a new transfer ban. Delegated rules cannot add fresh disabilities not in the statute.

What principle on delegated legislation does the case affirm?

A rule must (1) conform to the statute and (2) stay within delegated power. Essential policy choices must come from the legislature, not the executive.

Did the Court find the transfer ban linked to the Act’s purpose?

No. The ban did not serve the Act’s objective and so could not be justified as an implementation detail.

What happened to the High Court’s view?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and struck down the impugned proviso and the related circular.

Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2000 SC 1069)

Supreme Court of India 2000 AIR 2000 SC 1069 Land Ceiling / Delegated Legislation 7 min read India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Location: India • Published: October 23, 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: ultra vires; delegated legislation; Rule 3(1) proviso; tea plantation land SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: land ceiling; Section 26 rules; transfer restriction; parent Act conformity

Hero image for Kunj Behari Lal Butail case — transfer ban on tea-estate land and delegated legislation

Quick Summary

The State added a proviso to Rule 3(1) of the 1973 Rules to stop transfer of land “subservient to tea plantations” unless the Government allowed it. The Supreme Court said this ban went beyond the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The rule was ultra vires and was struck down.

Rules must follow the parent Act—no new burdens not in the statute.
Essential policy is the legislature’s job, not for delegated rules.
Transfer ban on tea-estate subservient land had no Act support.

Issues

Is the 4.4.1986 proviso to Rule 3(1) ultra vires the 1972 Act?
Is the transfer restriction on tea-estate support land arbitrary and outside the Act’s purpose?
Can delegated rules impose new substantive disabilities not in the Act?

Rules

Conformity Rule: A sub-rule must conform to the Act and stay within the delegated power.
No Expansion: Delegated legislation cannot override/expand the statute.
Non-delegable Core: Essential policy choices cannot be delegated; only ancillary details can.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline Image

Timeline: Act 1972, Rules 1973, 1986 Proviso, Circulars, Mutation refusals, Supreme Court

1972: State passes Land Ceiling Act to cap holdings.

1973: Rules framed; Rule 3 lists land “subservient to tea plantations.”

4 Apr 1986: Proviso added—no transfer of such land without State permission.

1990: Registrar’s circular blocks registrations/mutations; returns demanded.

HC: Upheld the proviso as reasonable.

SC (2000): Proviso and circular invalid; beyond Section 26 power.

Arguments: Appellants vs State

Appellants (Tea Estate Owners)

The Act excludes tea estates; a transfer ban is outside the statute.
Delegated rules cannot add new disabilities like a sale embargo.
The ban is arbitrary; it causes economic loss and unequal treatment.

Respondents (State of HP)

Aim is to prevent breaking up estates and to protect tea industry.
Permission system is a reasonable regulation, not a ban.
Power flows from Section 26 to frame rules.

Judgment

Judgment Image

Held: The proviso to Rule 3(1) (4.4.1986) is ultra vires. It imposes a substantive transfer prohibition not authorised by the 1972 Act, which explicitly excludes tea estates. Delegated rules must stay within the Act and cannot add fresh obligations. The appeal was allowed; the High Court judgment, the proviso, and the 21.8.1990 circular were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

Delegated legislation is valid only if it conforms to the Act and fits the delegated power.
The State cannot, by rule, create a new policy ban the statute did not adopt.
Where the Act exempts a subject (tea estates), a later rule cannot re-impose controls that the Act avoided.

Why It Matters

The decision safeguards legislative supremacy and predictability. Businesses and landowners can plan knowing that executive rules cannot expand the Act or bring back controls the legislature did not choose.

Key Takeaways

Rule 3(1) proviso struck down.
Ultra vires: beyond Section 26 power.
No new disabilities by delegated rules.

Tea estates remained outside the Act’s ceiling net.
Executive must stick to ancillary details only.
Circular blocking registrations also invalid.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Act First, Rule Next.”

Act Sets Policy: Legislature decides the big rules.
Rule Stays Inside: Delegated rule cannot go beyond the Act.
Tea Exempt Means Free: No transfer ban when the Act exempts tea estates.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can the State, by a rule under Section 26, bar transfers of land subservient to tea plantations?

Rule

A delegated rule must conform to the Act and remain within delegated limits. Essential policy cannot be delegated.

Application

The Act excluded tea estates; the new proviso added a fresh transfer disability. That changed policy, not mere procedure.

Conclusion

The proviso to Rule 3(1) and the circular were ultra vires and invalid. Appeal allowed.

Glossary

Ultra Vires: Beyond the power granted by law.
Delegated Legislation: Rules made by the executive under authority given by a statute.
Subservient Land: Land supporting a tea estate (e.g., roads, factories, workers’ areas).