Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJA GOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
State of M.P. and others (in all the appeals), Appellants
Versus
1. Champalal and others (In C. A. No. 379 of 1959)
2. Gulab Chand and another (In C. A No. 380 of 1959)
3. Mathura Prasad (In C. A. No. 381 of 1959)
4. Rattan Chand and others (In C. A. No. 382 of 1959)
5. Mohammad Mateen Khan (In C. A. No. 383 of 1959), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 379 to 383 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior-Advocate, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellants (In all the appeals); Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. S. Gupta, Advocate with him), for Respondents (In C. A. No. 380 of 1959), Mr. K. K. Jain, Advocate, for Respondents (In C. A. Nos. 381 to 383 of 1959).
Sub - S. (1) of S. 4 read with sub - S. (4) of the Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property within Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and is invalid. [Para 9
Section 4 (1) read in conjunction with the power contained in S. 4 (4) coupled with absence of any provision for entertaining objections from or for giving an opportunity to the owner or occupier of land selected for conducting eradication operation, to establish that notwithstanding his land being included in the notification under S. 4 (1) the particular land in which he was interested was not Kans infested and therefore did not stand in need of any eradication operation, must be characterised as arbitrary and imposing an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property within Art. 19 (1) (f). [Para 9
(2) Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication 4 Kans) Act 1954 - S. 4 (1) - provisions does not constitute excessive delegation of legislative power.
Section 4 (1) does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. The preamble and long title of the Act make it clear that the enactment is one "for the reclamation and development of lands by the eradication of Kans weed in certain areas in the State", the purpose being specified as the eradication of Kans in areas infested with it.
The legislative policy behind the provision is thus writ large, and what remains and is left to the executive is to carry out that mandate and give effect to the law so as to achieve the purposes of the Act. 'The area infested' is manifestly not capable of legislative definition but must obviously be left to the executive to determine having regard to the intensity of the weed infestation and its distribution. There is thus legislative guidance offered of the criteria which must be borne in mind by the Government before any area is declared as a 'Kans area' and if the determination of the particular area is left to the executive it cannot be said to be any delegation of legislative power at all. [Para 8
(3) Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication 'of Kans) Act 1954 - Ss. 4 (1) (b) - valid by - provisions are violative of Art 31 (2) as if stood before 4th Amendment and are invalid - there is 'taking of possession' by state and no provision for payment of compensation.
Section 4 (1) read with S. 6 (1) (b) of the Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Act is unconstitutional as violative of Art 31 (2) (as it stood before the 4th amendment) of the Constitution. [Para 11
There is a "taking possession" by the State of the immovable property of the owner within the Article, S. 6 (2) enacts a ban on the owner using the land notified under S. 4 (1) until there is in effect a de-notification of that land by Reclamation Officer and the lawful possession of the land is restored to the owner. In the circumstances, it is clear that possession of the Reclamation Officer is exclusive and amounts to taking possession within Art. 31 (2) if the period during which the owner is deprived of possession be short the compensation payable to him might be less but that does not, in any manner, affect the reality of the dispossession or rather the taking of possession by the State within the meaning of Art. 31 (2). [Para 10
"Further there is no provision for payment of compensation. Abstention from charging land revenue during the period when the land was not available to the owner cannot be treated as compensation, for when by deprivation of possession the owner is prevented from making any income from the land, the exemption from payment of land revenue, offers him no compensation, only it alleviates his loss. [Para 11
(4) Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Act 1954 - Ss. 7 and 8 - procedure in S. 7 is mandatory - no lawful demand under S. 8 can be made without compliance therewith.
"The procedure prescribed by S. 7 is mandatory and without compliance with it no lawful demand can be made for the contribution payable by any landholder. [Para 14
Where in carrying out eradication operations by deep ploughing by tractorisation the Central Government incurred the expenditure in the first instance by utilising the Central Tractor Organisation-a body set up by the Central Government - and then intimated to the State Government both the total amount which they had expended and which was repayable to them by the State, as well as the manner in which the amount thus recoverable from the State was to be allocated among the several landholders and the Reclamation Board never met and consequently neither computed the total expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the eradication operations, nor did it make the allocation among the holders of the lands on which eradication operations were conducted and a demand for contribution was made on the basis of instructions of Central Government.
Held: There was non-compliance with S. 7, and no lawful demand could be made under S. 8 and no recovery could be made. [Para 13
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. :
These five appeals which have been consolidated for hearing, raise for consideration principally two points:
(1) the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Act, 1954 (Act XIII of 1954) which will be hereafter referred to as the Act, and
(2) whether the provisions of the Act, even if constitutionally valid, were complied with in the case before us.
2. The Act the provisions of which we shall set out and examine later empowered the State Government to notify areas of the State as "Kans infested areas" and on such notification officers of the State were enabled to enter on the lands within the notified areas and conduct deep ploughing tractorisations operation with a view to eradicate the kans. We might mention even here that Kans are a species of weeds which infest large areas of land in and around the former State of Bhopal now forming part of Madhya Pradesh. The weeds are hardy, quick growing rapidly expanding the area of their infestation and sap the fertility from the soil and thus lead to very poor yield of the land and if the growth is more extensive, practically prevent any crops. The Act provided for the cost incurred in these eradication operations being recovered from the farmers on whose lands the tractorisation was effected. Acting under the said law, considerable extents of land in the former State of Bopal were tractorised and demands were made on the owners of the lands for the payment of the charges claimed as due. Five of these farmers on whom these demands were made thereupon filed petitions under Art. 226 before the Judicial Commissioner, Bhopal challenging the constitutionality of the Act as well as the legality of the levy, even assuming the law to be valid, and these petitions were allowed, and the learned Judicial Commissioner holding the Act to be unconstitutional and the levy illegal, granted the declaration and mandamus prayed for. The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained from the Judicial Commissioner certificates of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) and have preferred the appeals which are now before us.
3. We shall narrate a few facts which serve as a background to the enactment of the legislation now impugned, and which would also throw some light art some of the points urged by the respondents. It was recognised as early as the first decades of this century that without the eradication of Kans there could be no improvement in the return from the land in the Bhopal and surrounding areas. The question was as to how this was to be accomplished. With this end in view research was conducted by the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research from about 1940 onwards, and as a result it was concluded that the only method of eradicating the pestilential weed was by deep ploughing of the land with tractors which would reach a sufficient depth wherefrom the roots of the weed could be pulled out and exposed and thus destroyed. This conclusion, was accepted by the then Government of Bhopal who between the years 1944-48 carried out experiments by tractorisation or deep ploughing of land in several areas of the State. The experiments demonstrated that tractorisation would increase the out-turn of crops. This experiments ploughing was, however confined to particular villages and areas in the State but the results achieved in them showed that if done systematically, deep ploughing by tractors would help to eradicate the pest and increase the yield from the land. In order to carry out this purpose an Ordinance XXXVIII of 1949 was promulgated on October 20, 1949 whose provisions were substantially identical with those contained in the Act which we shall presently read. The notifications now impugned defining the areas to undergo tractorisation (which included in them the places where the lands of the respondents are situated) were issued under this Ordinance. Similarly, the notices demanding payment of sums from the respondents whose val
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
