Back
High Court Of Delhi
MARCHI - Appellant
Versus
MATHU RAIN - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal 349 of 1967
Decided On : 09/18/1968
UNION TERRITORIES (LAWS) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 2 - EXTENSION OF PUNJAB PRE-EMPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1960 TO HIMACHAL PRADESH - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 2 - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - SCOPE AND LIMITS - AMENDING OR REPEALING EXISTING LAWS - POWER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a sister of the vendor, claimed pre-emption of a sale deed executed by her brother in favor of the respondents. The lower Appellate Court dismissed her claim on the ground that, as per the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, made by the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1960, a sister was no longer entitled to pre-empt a sale by her brother. The appellant challenged the validity of Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, under which the Amendment Act was extended to Himachal Pradesh, and the extension itself, contending that the Central Government did not have the power to extend the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh and that Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, was unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, empowered the Central Government to extend to Himachal Pradesh any enactment which was in force in a State at the date of the notification. The Amendment Act was in force in the State of Punjab on the date of the notification, and therefore, the Central Government had the power to extend it to Himachal Pradesh. The Court further held that the argument that the Central Government could not extend to Himachal Pradesh any enactment which was inconsistent with an existing law in force in Himachal Pradesh was fallacious. The Central Government was debarred from repealing or amending an existing law, but it could extend to the Union Territories an enactment which had the effect of amending or repealing a pre-existing law in the Union Territory.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, empowered the Central Government to extend the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1960, to Himachal Pradesh? 2. Whether the extension of the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh was valid? 3. Whether Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, was unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, empowered the Central Government to extend to Himachal Pradesh any enactment which was in force in a State at the date of the notification. The Amendment Act was in force in the State of Punjab on the date of the notification, and therefore, the Central Government had the power to extend it to Himachal Pradesh. 2. The extension of the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh was valid. The Central Government was debarred from repealing or amending an existing law, but it could extend to the Union Territories an enactment which had the effect of amending or repealing a pre-existing law in the Union Territory. 3. Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, was not unconstitutional.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, was extended to Himachal Pradesh by the Central Government in 1949, acting under the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order, 1948. It is common ground that under Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, a sister was not entitled to pre-empt a sale by her brother. The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment Act (No. 2 of 1929), however, introduced the sister in the order of succession to the separate property of a Hindu male who dies intestate. The effect was that the sister thereafter became entitled to pre-empt a sale by her brother under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The amendment Act was extended by the Central Government to Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, by Notification No. G. S. R. dated 17-5-1963. The effect of the amendment was that the sister of the vendor lost her right of pre-emption which she had accidentally got in 1929.
( 3 ) THE appellant contends firstly that Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, did not give the Central Government the power to extend the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh inasmuch as the Central Government could not amend the Existing law, i. e. the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which already applied to the Himachal Pradesh. Secondly, even if the Central Government had the power to extend the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh, then Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, which purported to give such a power to it. was unconstitutional.
( 4 ) SECTION 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, runs as follows:
"the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to the Union Territory of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur or Tripura or to any part of such territory with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the notification. "
( 5 ) ON a plain reading it gives the Central Government the power to extend to Himachal Pradesh any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the Notification. The Amendment Act was in force in the State of Punjab on the date of the Notification arid it would appear that the Central Government had the power to extend it to Himachal Pradesh. The reasoning by which the appellant challenges the said power of the Central Government is as follows. The extension of the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh by the Central Government is an exercise of legislative power. The appellant challenges the common view that the said power was conferred on the Central Government by Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950. She contends that Parliament can delegate legislative power to the Central Government only for subsidiary and ancillary purposes. The legislative policy has to be laid down by Parliament. The Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, prior to the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 was known as Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950. Section 2 of the latter Act prior to its amendment in 1952 had contained the following additional words, viz. , "and provision may be made in any enactment so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding Law (other than a Central Act) which is for th
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
