CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is disposed of at the stega of preliminary hearing despite there bsing challenge to the consututional validity of Section 37 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 and karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1969. ( 2 ) SECTION 37a in substance empowers the State Government to exclude certain arees in iha State from the rigor of the provisions of the Act from such date and for such period, if any, as may be specified in the notification which the State Government is empowered to issue. The section reads as follows : "power of State Government to exclude the application of the Act-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, by notification, direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such areas from such date and from such period, if any, as may be specified in the notification. " a notification dated 24-6-1983 has been issued by which previsions of chapter II of the Act shall not apply to the districts of Dakshina Kannada and uttara Kannada. The power to issue such a notification was acquired by section 6 of Act No. 15 of 1979. Similarly, the lest sentence of Section 37a prescribing the time during which the notification shall be operative was introduced by Section 3 of amendment act 19 of 1983. ( 3 ) SRI S. R. Hegde Hudlamane appearing for the petitioner has contended, the conferment of power under Section 37a on the State Government without any guidelines laid down by the legislature itself is conferment of arbitrary power and therefore the section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the alternative, it is also contended, in support of the prayer that choosing Uttara Kannada and Dakshina kannada districts as indicated in the notification is an arbitrary choice and therefore even if the section is held to be valid by this Court, the notification should be struck down. ( 4 ) I do not think this Court should acceed to the contentions. Now, it is well settled that when a high authority is conferred power without guidelines, it does not amount to violation of article 14. ( 4 ) I do not think this Court should acceed to the contentions. Now, it is well settled that when a high authority is conferred power without guidelines, it does not amount to violation of article 14. When a high authority is required to exercise power without guidelines laid down by the legislature, it is expected that the high authority will properly exercise its discretion and exercise that power. It is only when it is demonstrated that such power isexercised arbitrarily, the resultant act may be stiuck down but not the conferment of power itself. Therefore, the State government which is the high authority in the state exercising executive functions, it is expected to act with responsibility and in public interest when it exercises under Sec. 37a. In such an event guidelines by the legislature is not an essential ingredient to render the section valid. It is only when it is demonstrated that such exercise of power is arbitrary, the resultant tction is liacble to be questioned which of coure the petitioner has done by seeking to have the notification also quashed. ( 5 ) IT is common knowledge that two districts of Karnataka are covered by hilly areas and heavy rain fall where it is almost impossible to find large extents of lands cultivateo by any one owner. Unless it be located in an exceptional areas which hardly exist in the two districts, being hilly and mountainous. It is equally common knowledge that very smell areas can be profitably cultivated on account of heavy rain fall and fertility of the soil. Over the generations, the lands in fact are cultivated in that manner and sub-divided in accordance with the personel laws of the owners resulting in very small fragments. The application of Part II of the Act as it was originally enacted in 1966 would be detrimental to the interests of the small land holders in the said districts. It is therefore that the power to exempt certain areas from the rigor of the Act has been conferred on the Government in the light of the experience gained. ( 6 ) THESE facts are not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily in exercising power under section 37a of the Act. It is therefore that the power to exempt certain areas from the rigor of the Act has been conferred on the Government in the light of the experience gained. ( 6 ) THESE facts are not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily in exercising power under section 37a of the Act. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons there is no merit in this petition and therefore the challenge made to Section 37a of the Act and the notification thereunder fs liable to be rejected and it is so rejected subject to the observation that any privilege the petitioner has acquired under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act which was in force prior to coming into force of the Act and which is saved if he has pleaded and established the same in any legal proceedings will not be affected. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .TEXT OF JUDGMENT (April 3, 1987) 1987 (TLS)1010029 1987-Kantlj-1-281 Subray Narayan Hebbar Vs. State of Karnataka CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is disposed of at the stega of preliminary hearing despite there bsing challenge to the consututional validity of Section 37 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 and karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1969. ( 2 ) SECTION 37a in substance empowers the State Government to exclude certain arees in iha State from the rigor of the provisions of the Act from such date and for such period, if any, as may be specified in the notification which the State Government is empowered to issue. The section reads as follows : "power of State Government to exclude the application of the Act-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, by notification, direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such areas from such date and from such period, if any, as may be specified in the notification. " a notification dated 24-6-1983 has been issued by which previsions of chapter II of the Act shall not apply to the districts of Dakshina Kannada and uttara Kannada. The power to issue such a notification was acquired by section 6 of Act No. 15 of 1979. " a notification dated 24-6-1983 has been issued by which previsions of chapter II of the Act shall not apply to the districts of Dakshina Kannada and uttara Kannada. The power to issue such a notification was acquired by section 6 of Act No. 15 of 1979. Similarly, the lest sentence of Section 37a prescribing the time during which the notification shall be operative was introduced by Section 3 of amendment act 19 of 1983. ( 3 ) SRI S. R. Hegde Hudlamane appearing for the petitioner has contended, the conferment of power under Section 37a on the State Government without any guidelines laid down by the legislature itself is conferment of arbitrary power and therefore the section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the alternative, it is also contended, in support of the prayer that choosing Uttara Kannada and Dakshina kannada districts as indicated in the notification is an arbitrary choice and therefore even if the section is held to be valid by this Court, the notification should be struck down. ( 4 ) I do not think this Court should acceed to the contentions. Now, it is well settled that when a high authority is conferred power without guidelines, it does not amount to violation of article 14. When a high authority is required to exercise power without guidelines laid down by the legislature, it is expected that the high authority will properly exercise its discretion and exercise that power. It is only when it is demonstrated that such power isexercised arbitrarily, the resultant act may be stiuck down but not the conferment of power itself. Therefore, the State government which is the high authority in the state exercising executive functions, it is expected to act with responsibility and in public interest when it exercises under Sec. 37a. In such an event guidelines by the legislature is not an essential ingredient to render the section valid. It is only when it is demonstrated that such exercise of power is arbitrary, the resultant tction is liacble to be questioned which of coure the petitioner has done by seeking to have the notification also quashed. ( 5 ) IT is common knowledge that two districts of Karnataka are covered by hilly areas and heavy rain fall where it is almost impossible to find large extents of lands cultivateo by any one owner. ( 5 ) IT is common knowledge that two districts of Karnataka are covered by hilly areas and heavy rain fall where it is almost impossible to find large extents of lands cultivateo by any one owner. Unless it be located in an exceptional areas which hardly exist in the two districts, being hilly and mountainous. It is equally common knowledge that very smell areas can be profitably cultivated on account of heavy rain fall and fertility of the soil. Over the generations, the lands in fact are cultivated in that manner and sub-divided in accordance with the personel laws of the owners resulting in very small fragments. The application of Part II of the Act as it was originally enacted in 1966 would be detrimental to the interests of the small land holders in the said districts. It is therefore that the power to exempt certain areas from the rigor of the Act has been conferred on the Government in the light of the experience gained. ( 6 ) THESE facts are not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily in exercising power under section 37a of the Act. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons there is no merit in this petition and therefore the challenge made to Section 37a of the Act and the notification thereunder fs liable to be rejected and it is so rejected subject to the observation that any privilege the petitioner has acquired under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act which was in force prior to coming into force of the Act and which is saved if he has pleaded and established the same in any legal proceedings will not be affected. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .TEXT OF JUDGMENT (April 3, 1987) 1987 (TLS)1010029 1987-Kantlj-1-281 Subray Narayan Hebbar Vs. State of Karnataka CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is disposed of at the stega of preliminary hearing despite there bsing challenge to the consututional validity of Section 37 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 and karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1969. State of Karnataka CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is disposed of at the stega of preliminary hearing despite there bsing challenge to the consututional validity of Section 37 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 and karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1969. ( 2 ) SECTION 37a in substance empowers the State Government to exclude certain arees in iha State from the rigor of the provisions of the Act from such date and for such period, if any, as may be specified in the notification which the State Government is empowered to issue. The section reads as follows : "power of State Government to exclude the application of the Act-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, by notification, direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such areas from such date and from such period, if any, as may be specified in the notification. " a notification dated 24-6-1983 has been issued by which previsions of chapter II of the Act shall not apply to the districts of Dakshina Kannada and uttara Kannada. The power to issue such a notification was acquired by section 6 of Act No. 15 of 1979. Similarly, the lest sentence of Section 37a prescribing the time during which the notification shall be operative was introduced by Section 3 of amendment act 19 of 1983. ( 3 ) SRI S. R. Hegde Hudlamane appearing for the petitioner has contended, the conferment of power under Section 37a on the State Government without any guidelines laid down by the legislature itself is conferment of arbitrary power and therefore the section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the alternative, it is also contended, in support of the prayer that choosing Uttara Kannada and Dakshina kannada districts as indicated in the notification is an arbitrary choice and therefore even if the section is held to be valid by this Court, the notification should be struck down. ( 4 ) I do not think this Court should acceed to the contentions. Now, it is well settled that when a high authority is conferred power without guidelines, it does not amount to violation of article 14. ( 4 ) I do not think this Court should acceed to the contentions. Now, it is well settled that when a high authority is conferred power without guidelines, it does not amount to violation of article 14. When a high authority is required to exercise power without guidelines laid down by the legislature, it is expected that the high authority will properly exercise its discretion and exercise that power. It is only when it is demonstrated that such power isexercised arbitrarily, the resultant act may be stiuck down but not the conferment of power itself. Therefore, the State government which is the high authority in the state exercising executive functions, it is expected to act with responsibility and in public interest when it exercises under Sec. 37a. In such an event guidelines by the legislature is not an essential ingredient to render the section valid. It is only when it is demonstrated that such exercise of power is arbitrary, the resultant tction is liacble to be questioned which of coure the petitioner has done by seeking to have the notification also quashed. ( 5 ) IT is common knowledge that two districts of Karnataka are covered by hilly areas and heavy rain fall where it is almost impossible to find large extents of lands cultivateo by any one owner. Unless it be located in an exceptional areas which hardly exist in the two districts, being hilly and mountainous. It is equally common knowledge that very smell areas can be profitably cultivated on account of heavy rain fall and fertility of the soil. Over the generations, the lands in fact are cultivated in that manner and sub-divided in accordance with the personel laws of the owners resulting in very small fragments. The application of Part II of the Act as it was originally enacted in 1966 would be detrimental to the interests of the small land holders in the said districts. It is therefore that the power to exempt certain areas from the rigor of the Act has been conferred on the Government in the light of the experience gained. ( 6 ) THESE facts are not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily in exercising power under section 37a of the Act. It is therefore that the power to exempt certain areas from the rigor of the Act has been conferred on the Government in the light of the experience gained. ( 6 ) THESE facts are not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily in exercising power under section 37a of the Act. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons there is no merit in this petition and therefore the challenge made to Section 37a of the Act and the notification thereunder fs liable to be rejected and it is so rejected subject to the observation that any privilege the petitioner has acquired under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act which was in force prior to coming into force of the Act and which is saved if he has pleaded and established the same in any legal proceedings will not be affected. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .