SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 445

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st December, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, K.S. RAO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
State of W.B. , Plaintiff
Versus
Union of India, Defendant.
1 to 9. The advocates-General for the States of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab Assam Orissa, Madras, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat. 10. The Natural Coal Development Corporation, Interveners.
Suit No. 1 of 1961
Advocates appeared
Sir S. M. Bose, Advocate General, for the State of West Bengal and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s S. C. Bose, Milon K. Banerjee, P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, Advocates with them), for Plaintiff; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney -General for India, Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor General of India, M/s Bishan Narain and N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Defendant; Mr. B. Sen Senior Advocate, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate with him), for Intervener No. 1; Mr. S. M. Sikri, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him) for Intervener No. 2; Mr. B. C. Barua, Advocate-General for the State of Assam, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 3; Mr. Dinabandhu Sahu, Advocate General for the State of Orissa (M/s. B. K. P. Sinha and P. D. Menon. Advocates with him), for Intervener No. 4; Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. V Rangam, Advocate. with him), for intervener No. 5, (Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, Govt. Advocate, Bihar, (Mr. O. Goburdhan, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 6. Mr. K S. Hajela, Senior Advocate; (Mr. C. P. La Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 7 Mr. P.D. Menon, Advocate, for Intervener No. 8; Mr. S. M. Sikri, Advocate - General for the Stale of Punjab, (Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 9; M/s G. S. Pathak and N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocates, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Intervener No. 10.

Advocates:
A.BANGANADHAM CHETTY, A.V.RANGAM, B.C.BARUAH, B.K.P.SINHA, B.SEN, BISHAN NARAIN, C.P.LAL, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, DINBANDHU SAHU, G.S.PATHAK, H.N.SANYAL, I.M.SHROFF, K.S.Hajela, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.BANERJI, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, P.D.MENON, P.K.BOSH, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BOSE, S.M.BOSE, S.M.Sikri

Headnote:WORD “PERSON” IN ARTICLE 31(1)—MEANING

       -held, expression in clause and context do not justify interpretation that protection under the Article is not available against acquisition of State property.

       

JUDGMENT

Sinha, C.J.I. (for himself, Imam, Shah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Mudholkar JJ.)

This is a suit by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India for a declaration that Parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union Government to acquire land and rights in or over land, which are vested in a State, and that the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957) - which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act - enacted by the Parliament, and particularly Sections 4 and 7 thereof, were ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament, as also for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of these sections of the Act in respect of the coal bearing lands vested in the plaintiff. As will presently appear, the suit raises questions of great public importance, bearing on the interpretation of quite a large number of the Articles of the Constitution. In view of the importance of the questions raised in this litigation, notices were issued by this Court to all the Advocates-General of the States of India. In pursuance of that notice, the States of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Madras, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have appeared, either through their respective Advocates-General or through other Counsel. The National Coal Development Corporation Ltd., with its head office at Ranchi in Bihar, has also intervened in view of a pending litigation between it as one of the defendants and the State of West Bengal as the plaintiff. We have heard counsel for the parties at great length.

2. The Plaint is founded on the following allegations. The plaintiff is a State, specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution, as forming part of India, which is a Union of States. By virtue of Art. 294 of the Constitution, all property and assets in West Bengal, which were vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of the Province of Bengal became vested in the State of West Bengal for the purposes of the State. The State of West Bengal, in exercise of its exclusive legislative powers, enacted the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 (W.B. 1 of 1954). By notification issued under the Act, as amended, all estates and rights of intermediaries and Ryots vested in the State for the purposes of Government, free from encumbrances, together with rights in the sub-soil, including mines and minerals. The Parliament enacted the impugned Act authorising the Union of India to acquire any land or any right in or over land, in any part of India. In exercise of its powers under the Act, the Union of India, by two notifications dated September 21, 1959 and January 8, 1960, has expressed its intention to prospect for coal lying within the lands which are vested in the plaintiff, as aforesaid. Disputes and differences have arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the competence of Parliament to enact the Act and its power to acquire the property of the plaintiff, which is a sovereign authority. In paragraph 9 of the Plaint, a controversy had been raised as to whether or not the proposed acquisition was for a public purpose, but at the actual hearing of the case, the learned Advocate-General of Bengal withdrew that contention, and, therefore, that issue is no more a live one. Notice under s. 80 of the CPC is said to have been duly served.

3. The Written Statement of the defendant does not deny the allegations of fact made in the Plaint, but denies the correctness of each and all the submissions or legal contentions as to the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Act and as to the power of the defendant to acquire any property of a State. It is also denied that the State of West Bengal is a sovereign authority. The following statement in paragraph 12 of the Written Statement brings out the policy underlying the enactment in question :

"The defendant states that it is in the public interest that there should be a planned and rapid industrializ

















































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top