Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHANDRA REDDY, SRINIVASA CHARI
Nalluri Venkataraju - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-15-60
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES - ANDHRA PRADESH AND MADRAS (ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES) ACT, 1959 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - CHALLENGED - VALIDITY UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Two residents of Balakrishnapuram, Tiruitanj Taluk, Andhra Pradesh, challenged the vires of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959, seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the State of Andhra Pradesh from enforcing the provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the validity of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959, finding no constitutional infirmity.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act was beyond the competence of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to transfer part of its territory to the State of Madras. 2. Whether the enactment was invalid since the procedure laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution was not followed. 3. Whether the proposal for the legislation emanated from the concerned States and not from the President as required by Article 3 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the Act violated the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution. 5. Whether the Act dealt with matters committed to the State Legislatures, thus trenching upon the field allotted to the State Legislatures. 6. Whether the provisions extending the jurisdiction of the High Court of either State over the transferred area violated Articles 214 and 215 of the Constitution. 7. Whether some sections of the Act conferred legislative powers on the executive and the judiciary, amounting to unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 8. Whether the transfer of 55 villages, which were not enumerated in Schedule II, was beyond the authority of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act envisaged the alteration of boundaries, which necessarily involved an increase or diminution in the area of one or the other of the States. 2. Article 368 of the Constitution was not applicable to legislations made by Parliament under Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. 3. The proposal for the legislation did not need to be traceable to the initiative of the President. 4. The Act complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Constitution. 5. The Act contained consequential provisions necessary for the alteration of boundaries, and did not trench upon the field allotted to the State Legislatures. 6. The provisions extending the jurisdiction of the High Court were in accordance with Article 214 of the Constitution. 7. The delegation of power to adapt laws was permissible and did not amount to unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 8. The transfer of the 55 villages was authorized by the Act, as they were included in Schedule II.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the validity of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959, was dismissed.
( 1 ) TWO of the residents of Balakrishnapuram, Tiruitanj Taluk, which was till the 1st of April, 1930 a part of Chittoor District, question the vires of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity ). They seek a writ of mandamus to restrain the State of Andhra Pradesh from enforcing the provisions of the said Act.
( 2 ) IT is necessary to trace briefly the origin of the Act. On 1/10/1953, the Andhra State was formed under the Andhra State Act, 1953. At that time, the boundaries between the Andhra State and the State of Madras and Mysore were not finally settled and the Prime Minister of India announced that a Boundary Commission or Commissions might have to be appointed to determine the exact boundaries of these States. Pursuant to this, several steps were taken for adjusting the boundaries between Andhra and Madras States and a census of the various border villages was collected by the officers appointed by the Government of India. Ministers of both the States had protracted negotiations regarding these areas and the concerned Chief Ministers had also participated in these matters.
( 3 ) UBSEQUENTLY, Sri H. V. Pataskar was appointed by the Union Government to mediate in the disputes between the two States. To facilitate the work in this behalf, the Government of Madras supplied Sri Pataskar with a map relating to the border villages based on the census of 1951.
( 4 ) MEANWHILE, the State of Andhra Pradesh was constituted on 1/11/1956 consequent on the passing of the States Reorganization Act and It included a few of the districts of the erstwhile Hyderabad State popularly known as Telangana.
( 5 ) ULTIMATELY, Sri Pataskar presented his award on 25-5-1957 proposing certain adjustments with regard to the boundarias between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras. To give effect to this award, a bill was introduced on 12-8-1959 in Parliament on the recommendation of the President as required by the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution and finally on its being passed by both the Houses, it received the Presidents assent on 24/12/1959. The appointed date from which the territorial changes Were to come into effect was 1/04/1980. As a result of this Act, 318 villages of Andhra Pradesh covering an area of 405 sq. miles with a population of 2. 40 lakhs were transferred to the State of Madras and 151 villages of the State of Madras covering an area of 326 sq. miles with a population of 95,000 were transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The former is set out in Schedule II annexed to the Act and the latter in Schedule I.
( 6 ) THE constitutionality of the Act is assailed on Various grounds : 1. The Act envisaged only the alteration of the boundaries of both the States and not the increase of the area of one State or the diminution of the area of another State and consequently it was beyond the competence of the Govt. of the Andhra Pradesh to transfer part of its territory to the State of Madras, 2. The enactment in question is invalid since the procedure laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution was not followed. 3. The proposal for the legislation emanated from the concerned States and not from the President as required by Article 3 of the Constitution and consequently the Act is invalid. 4. The Act violated the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution in that the bill was not referred back to the State Legislatures after some of the clauses thereof were amended in the Parliament. 5. The Act which was passed by the Parliament had dealt with matters committed to the State Legislatures, thus trenching upon the field allotted to the State Legislatures and as such invalid also Sections 11, 15 and 17 of the statute offend against the provisions of Articles. 80, 81, 170 and 171 of the Constitution. 6. The provisions extending the jurisdiction of the High Court of either State over the transfer red area had violated Articles 214 and 2
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
