Case: The State Of Uttar Pradeshand Others Vs. H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh

been held by the owner thereof under a purchase made before the first day of April, 1948, but after the first day of September, 1939, by a registered document, or a decree for pre-emption between the aforesaid dates, the compensation shall be the price actually paid by the purchaser or the amount on payment of which he may have acquired the land in the decree for pre-emption, as the case may be.3. The High Court held that these two provisos were invalid and that devoid of these offending provisos, S. 11 (1) of the Act was not invalid and consequently the order of the appellants was a valid order and thus the writ for certiorari was refused.4. In regard to the prayer for a writ of mandamus, the High Court observed:"Nor do we think that we should order the issue of mandamus directing the Compensation Officer in determining the compensation payable to the petitioners to ignore the provisos to S. 11(1). We have held those provisos to be invalid. The Compensation Officer, for some reason of which we are not aware, has not yet embarked on the task of determining the compensation, but when he does so we assume that he will be guided by the opinion we have expressed; we cannot assume that he will act otherwise.5. The petition was therefore dismissed but the appellants were ordered to pay costs. It is against this judgment that the appellants have appealed to this Court on a certificate.6. No objection was taken by the respondent to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the petition had been dismissed and the legality of the certificate has not been challenged before us.7. The only question for decision is whether the two provisos to S. 11 (1) of the Act are unconstitutional because of the provisions of S. 299 (2) of the Government of India Act,1935. The Constitution was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and Art. 31-B was inserted in the Constitution which is as follows:"Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Art. 31A, none of the facts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule for any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.8. By S. 5 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act of 1955 which was published on April 27, 1955, the Act was included in the Schedule and is item 15. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that by the inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule, the ground of unconstitutionality of the Act because of S. 299 (2) of the Government of India Act is no longer available to the respondent and that what was provided as a safeguard in S. 299 (2) of the Government of India Act has been incorporated in the Constitution and therefore any unconstitutionality arising as a result of contravention of S. 299(2) of the Government of India Act is cured by Art. 31-B of the Constitution. This question was raised and decided in Dhirubha Devisingh Gohil v. State of Bombay, 1955-1 SCR 691 at p. 695 : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 47 at p. 49). It was held that S. 299 (2) of the Government of India Act was in substance a fundamental right which was lifted bodily as it were from the Government of India Act into Part III of the Constitution. Therefore the protection under Art. 31-B against the violation of the fundamental rights mentioned therein must extend to the rights under S. 299 of the Government of India Act also. The following passage from that judgment at page 695 (of SCR): (at p. 49 of AIR) is important and applicable to the facts of the present case:"What article 31-B protects is not a mere contravention of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution but an attack on the grounds that the impugned Act is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provisions of this Part: One of the rights secured to a person by Part III of the Constitution is a right that his property shall be acquired only for public purposes and under a law authorising such acquisition and providing for compensation which is either fixed by the law itself or regulated by principles specified by the law. That is also the very right which was previously secured to the person under S. 299 of the Government of India Act.9. In view of the judgment of this Court in Dhirubha Devisingh Gohils case, 1955-1 SCR 691 : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 47 )the ground of unconstitutionality based on the contravention of S. 299 of the Government of India Act would not be available to the respondent. But it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the amendment of the Constitution which came after the decision of the Allahabad High Court cannot validate the earlier legislation which, at the time it was passed was unconstitutional and reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U. P., 1955-1 SCR 707 at pp. 727, 728 : (AIR 1954 SC 728 at pp. 739-740).But in the present case the provisions of the Act have been specifically saved from any attack on their constitutionality as a consequence of Art. 31-B read with the Ninth Schedule, the effect of which is that the Act cannot be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground of its being hit by the operation of the Government of India Act.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. In view of the judgment of this Court in Dhirubha Devisingh Gohils case, 1955-1 SCR 691  : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 47 )the ground of unconstitutionality based on the contravention of S. 299 of the Government of India Act would not be available to the respondent. But it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the amendment of the Constitution which came after the decision of the Allahabad High Court cannot validate the earlier legislation which, at the time it was passed was unconstitutional and reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U. P., 1955-1 SCR 707  at pp. 727, 728 : (AIR 1954 SC 728  at pp. 739-740).But in the present case the provisions of the Act have been specifically saved from any attack on their constitutionality as a consequence of Art. 31-B read with the Ninth Schedule, the effect of which is that the Act cannot be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground of its being hit by the operation of the Government of India Act.