Case: Jadab Singh And Others Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Administrationand Another

New Himachal State Assembly to enact the Abolition Act in 1954 cannot be and is not denied. There is no absolute bar against the authority of the Parliament to enact legislation which takes away vested rights provided the legislation falls within any of the legislative lists within the competence of the Parliament and it does not infringe any of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Again, no constitutional provision is violated by the enactment of Act 56 of 1958. We are also unable to hold that the authority of Parliament to validate the acts and proceedings of the assembly summoned by the Lieutenant-Governor in 1954 was exhausted when Art. 240 as it originally stood was amended by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 and Part C State of Himachal Pradesh ceased to exist.When the Validating Act was enacted, the Himachal Pradesh State had ceased to exist and by the operation of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, that State had merged in the State of Punjab, but on that account, the authority of the Parliament to validate the proceedings of the body of persons which purported to function as the Legislative Assembly under Act 32 of 1954 was not extinguished.10. Did the Abolition Act infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19 or Art. 31 of the Constitution? By S. 11, the tenants were invested with the right to acquire the interests of the landowners in the lands held by them. It was provided that notwithstanding any law, custom or contract to the contrary, any tenant other than a sub-tenant shall, on application made to the compensation officer at any time after the commencement of the Act, be entitled to acquire, on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land held by him subject to certain terms and conditions set out therein. Section 14 permitted acquisition by the tenants of the rights of the landowners in a portion of the lands of the tenancy in certain specified circumstances. Section 15 sanctioned the acquisition by the State Government of the rights of the landowners by notification in the gazette declaring that as from such date and in respect of such area as may be specified in the notification, the right, title and interest of the land-owner in the lands of any tenancy held under him by a tenant shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances created in such lands by the land-owner. By S. 16, the method of computation of the compensation payable for acquisition of the right, title and interest of the land-owners under S. 15 is prescribed. By S. 27, it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the foregoing sections of that chapter, the land-owner who held land, the annual land revenue of which exceeded Rs. 125/- per year, the right, title and interest of such owner in such land shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free of all encumbrances. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 27 laid down that the land-owner whose right was acquired under sub-sec. (1) by the State Government shall be entitled to receive compensation to be determined by the compensation officer having regard to Ss. 17 and 18 of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II; but in the case of such occupancy tenant who was liable to pay rent in terms of land revenue or the multiple of land revenue, the compensation payable to his land-owner shall be computed in accordance with Schedule I. Provision was also made by the Act for State management of lands in certain eventualities. Article 31 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 provides inter alia that a law for compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes shall not be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate, and by Art. 31A which was substituted by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 for the original Article with retrospective effect, it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Art. 13, no law providing for (a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights.... Shall be deemed to have become void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights conferred by Art. 14, 19 or 31; provided that where such law is made by the legislature of a State, the provisions of the Article shall not apply thereto unless, the law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent. The Abolition Act passed by the State Assembly was reserved for consideration of the President and it received his assent. The impugned Act contains provisions transferring the interest of the land-owners to the tenants in lands and for acquisition by the State of the property of the land-owners on payment to compensation under the Schedule provided in that behalf. This Court has held in Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459 , that a statute the object of which is to bring about agrarian reform by transferring the interest of the land-owners to tenants falls within the class of statutes contemplated by Art. 31A (a) and is protected from the attack that it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners conceded and in our judgment rightly, that the principle of that case governed this case and the validity of S. 11 could not in view of Art. 31A be challenged. The validity of the provisions for acquisition by the State of the lands of the land-owners for compensation determinable in accordance with the provisions of Sch. II is also not liable to be challenged under Art. 31 read with Art. 31A.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]By S. 11, the tenants were invested with the right to acquire the interests of the landowners in the lands held by them. It was provided that notwithstanding any law, custom or contract to the contrary, any tenant other than a sub-tenant shall, on application made to the compensation officer at any time after the commencement of the Act, be entitled to acquire, on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land held by him subject to certain terms and conditions set out therein. Section 14 permitted acquisition by the tenants of the rights of the landowners in a portion of the lands of the tenancy in certain specified circumstances. Section 15 sanctioned the acquisition by the State Government of the rights of the landowners by notification in the gazette declaring that as from such date and in respect of such area as may be specified in the notification, the right, title and interest of the land-owner in the lands of any tenancy held under him by a tenant shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances created in such lands by the land-owner. By S. 16, the method of computation of the compensation payable for acquisition of the right, title and interest of the land-owners under S. 15 is prescribed. By S. 27, it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the foregoing sections of that chapter, the land-owner who held land, the annual land revenue of which exceeded Rs. 125/- per year, the right, title and interest of such owner in such land shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free of all encumbrances. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 27 laid down that the land-owner whose right was acquired under sub-sec. (1) by the State Government shall be entitled to receive compensation to be determined by the compensation officer having regard to Ss. 17 and 18 of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II; but in the case of such occupancy tenant who was liable to pay rent in terms of land revenue or the multiple of land revenue, the compensation payable to his land-owner shall be computed in accordance with Schedule I. Provision was also made by the Act for State management of lands in certain eventualities. Article 31 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 provides inter alia that a law for compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes shall not be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate, and by Art. 31A which was substituted by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 for the original Article with retrospective effect, it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Art. 13, no law providing for (a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights.... Shall be deemed to have become void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights conferred by Art. 14, 19 or 31; provided that where such law is made by the legislature of a State, the provisions of the Article shall not apply thereto unless, the law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent. The Abolition Act passed by the State Assembly was reserved for consideration of the President and it received his assent. The impugned Act contains provisions transferring the interest of the land-owners to the tenants in lands and for acquisition by the State of the property of the land-owners on payment to compensation under the Schedule provided in that behalf. This Court has held in Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459 , that a statute the object of which is to bring about agrarian reform by transferring the interest of the land-owners to tenants falls within the class of statutes contemplated by Art. 31A (a) and is protected from the attack that it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners conceded and in our judgment rightly, that the principle of that case governed this case and the validity of S. 11 could not in view of Art. 31A be challenged. The validity of the provisions for acquisition by the State of the lands of the land-owners for compensation determinable in accordance with the provisions of Sch. II is also not liable to be challenged under Art. 31 read with Art. 31A.The legislative competence of the Legislative Assembly of the New Himachal State Assembly to enact the Abolition Act in 1954 cannot be and is not denied. There is no absolute bar against the authority of the Parliament to enact legislation which takes away vested rights provided the legislation falls within any of the legislative lists within the competence of the Parliament and it does not infringe any of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Again, no constitutional provision is violated by the enactment of Act 56 of 1958. We are also unable to hold that the authority of Parliament to validate the acts and proceedings of the assembly summoned by the Lieutenant-Governor in 1954 was exhausted when Art. 240 as it originally stood was amended by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 and Part C State of Himachal Pradesh ceased to exist.When the Validating Act was enacted, the Himachal Pradesh State had ceased to exist and by the operation ofthe States Reorganisation Act, 1956, that State had merged in the State of Punjab, but on that account, the authority of the Parliament to validate the proceedings of the body of persons which purported to function as the Legislative Assembly under Act 32 of 1954 was not extinguished.