1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act 1952 and the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act 1956 regarding leasehold and forest rights. (Para 1 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., J.C.Shah, K.C.Das Gupta, K.N.Wanchoo, P.B.Gajendragadkar, JJ.
Mahendra Lal Jaini
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 59 of 1962
Date of Decision : 11/7/62
Advocates Appeared: Agarwala C.B. : Gupta K.P. : Hajela H.S. : Lal C.P. : Pathak G.S.
Advocates:
C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, G.S.PATHAK, H.S.Hajela, K.P.GUPTA
C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, G.S.PATHAK, H.S.Hajela, K.P.GUPTA
Post-Constitution laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments via the doctrine of eclipse, which applies exclusively to pre-Constitution laws.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 13(1), 13(2), 31, 32 - U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1952 - Doctrine of Eclipse - Post-Constitution laws - A law enacted after the commencement of the Constitution which is void for violating fundamental rights is a nullity from its inception and cannot be revived by a subsequent constitutional amendment. The doctrine of eclipse applies only to pre-Constitution laws governed by Article 13(1), which were valid when enacted and became inoperative due to inconsistency with fundamental rights. In contrast, post-Constitution laws governed by Article 13(2) that contravene fundamental rights are "still-born" and cannot be revived even if the constitutional bar is later removed. (Paras 15-24)
(B) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Chapter II and Chapter V-A (introduced by Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1956) - Provisions allowing the State to regulate or prohibit acts in forests of claimants are constitutional if they are ancillary to the process of determining rights in reserved forests. Such provisions serve as interim measures for forest protection pending the final adjudication of claims under the statutory machinery for reserved forests. (Paras 25-28)
(C) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Tenure-holders, including those with bhumidhari rights, hold land under the State, which remains the proprietor. Consequently, such lands are subject to the provisions of the Forest Act regarding reserved forests, as the rights of a tenure-holder are subordinate to the proprietary rights of the State. (Para 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of an Act regulating land transfers and an amendment to a forest law. The petitioner had obtained a permanent lease of land which subsequently vested in the State under a land reforms act. The transfer act declared certain leases void without providing compensation, while the forest amendment act restricted activities on land claimed by individuals. The petitioner sought a declaration that the transfer act and forest amendment act were ultra vires and that he be recognized as a tenure-holder with specific rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the transfer act violated the right to property as it stood at the time of enactment by depriving owners of property without compensation. It held that the forest amendment act was a valid interim measure to protect forests while claims were being processed under the reserved forest machinery. The court also held that the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition as the lease created a right in presenti, regardless of whether the lease was later rendered void by the transfer act.
Issues: (1) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the acts based on a registered lease; (2) Whether the transfer act was constitutional given the lack of compensation under the Constitution as it stood in 1952; (3) Whether the forest amendment act imposed unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between Article 13(1) and 13(2), ruling that post-Constitution laws violating fundamental rights are void from inception and cannot be revived by the doctrine of eclipse. Regarding forest laws, it ruled that since the State is the proprietor of land under the land reforms act, interim restrictions on tenure-holders are constitutional as they are supplementary to the process of constituting reserved forests.
Result: Petition allowed in part; the U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1952 is struck down as unconstitutional.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
administrative law
-
delegated legislation
- gazette notifications (Para 30)
-
delegated legislation
- land law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges violation of Article 31 and 19(1)(f) due to lack of compensation and unreasonable restrictions; State maintains the Acts are valid and petitioner lacks locus standi. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The court analyzed the applicability of the doctrine of eclipse to post-Constitution laws and the nature of interim forest protection measures under the Forest Act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. Post-Constitution laws contravening fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments via the doctrine of eclipse. (Para 22 , 24 )
5. The U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act 1952 is declared unconstitutional and struck down; the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act 1956 is upheld. (Para 31 , 32 )
6. Does the doctrine of eclipse apply to laws enacted after the commencement of the Constitution?
No. The doctrine of eclipse applies only to pre-Constitution laws under Article 13(1). Post-Constitution laws that contravene fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments because nothing can be revived which never had any valid existence. (Para 18 , 22 , 24 )
7. At what point in time is the constitutionality of an Act judged?
The constitutionality of an Act must be judged based on the Constitution as it existed on the date the Act was passed, subject to any retrospective amendments of the Constitution. (Para 14 )
8. Is a law prohibiting acts in forests of claimants constitutional if it serves as an interim measure?
Yes. If the provisions are ancillary to the process of determining rights under the Forest Act, they are constitutional as they serve the public interest by providing interim protection of forests pending the disposal of claims. (Para 27 , 28 )
9. Does a bhumidhar under the Abolition Act possess proprietary rights that exempt their land from reserved forest proceedings?
No. A bhumidhar is a tenure-holder under the State, which remains the proprietor. Therefore, the land is subject to the Forest Act's proceedings for determining subordinate rights, as bhumidhari rights are subordinate to the State's proprietary rights. (Para 29 )
10. Can a government order cancel a notification published in the official Gazette?
No. A notification issued and published in the Gazette can only be cancelled or modified in the same manner—through another notification published in the Gazette. A mere departmental instruction or government order is insufficient. (Para 30 )
WANCHOO, J.:
(1) THIS petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of U. P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act 1952, (U. P. XV of 1952), (hereinafter called the Transfer Act) and the Indian Forest (U. P. Amendment) Act 1956, (U. P. V of 1956), (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Amendment Act.) The case of the petitioner is that he obtained a permanent lease from the Maharaja Bahadur of Nahan of certain land known as `asarori` land, situate in the district of Dehra Dun, in Uttar Pradesh. The area leased out to him was 1069.68 acres in Khewat No. 1, Mahal No. 8, Khasra Nos. 1A, 1B and 2. This land was originally a Crown grant and had been free from revenue since 1866. Initially, it belonged to Major P. Innes but was subsequently transferred to the Maharaja Bahadur of Nahan. On 25/01/1951, an agreement was executed by the Maharaja Bahadur in favour of the petitioner and one Virendra Goyal for lease of this land for a consideration of an annual rent of Rs. 2,200.00 and a premium of Rs. 64,000.00 . The petitioners case further is that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to him at the time the agreement to lease was executed. It appears that at that time a large number of trees were standing on this land and the-Maharaja Bahadur had given a contract for the removal of the trees to another person with a view to making the land culturable, and the intention of the lessor was to demise the land to the petitioner after the trees were removed, so that the petitioner may carry on agricultural operations thereon. On 14/06/1952, a registered was executed by the Maharaja Bahadur in favour of the petitioner and Virendra Goyal and it was recited therein that the entire land had been cleared of the trees and had been in possession of the lessees from the date of the agreement referred to above. Therefore, in fulfillment of the agreement, the lease was executed demising to the lessees the land in question on an annual rent of Rs. 2,200.00 . The lease was permanent, heritable and transferable. The lease also provided that the lessor had given the right of hereditary tenancy within the meaning of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 to the lessees. The lessees were also given the right to put the land to any other use whatsoever besides agriculture and subterranean rights were also conferred. They had also the right to sub-let and assign the land.
(2) THE petitioners case further is that Virendra Goyal is merely a benamidar and has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute and that a suit for declaration in that behalf is pending in the Civil court at Dehra Dun between the petitioner and Virendra Goyal. A day after the agreement of lease was executed, the U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act), came into force on 26/01/1951, and the land in dispute is land within the meaning of this Act. The Abolition Act was actually applied to this area by a notification issued under s. 4 thereof from 1/07/1952, shortly after the registered lease in favour of the petitioner and another had been made. The contention of the petitioner is that in consequence of the application of the Abolition Act to this area, the petitioner became a bhumidhar of the land under s. 18 (d) (iii) of the Abolition Act and that his bhumidhari rights still subsist. On 5/07/1952, the petitioner and his employees went to the land to carry on agricultural operations, but they were stopped from doing so by the City Magistrate, Dehra Dun along with the Divisional Forest Officer and the Tehsildar, Dehra Dun. He was ordered to desist from clearing the land until further orders. The matter was then referred to the government of Uttar Pradesh, and the petitioner was ordered to desist from doing anything, which was contrary to the U. P. Private Forests Act 1948 (U. P. VI of 1949). It may be mentioned that in the meantime the, Transfer Act which was pass
