Case: Delhi Cloth &amp; General Mills Co.Ltd Vs. State Of Rajasthan

should be deemed to come within the amendment made thereby, provided, of course, that it was of a kind that could so come. Reliance was placed by Mr Sorabjee also upon Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India. In the case of State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma this Court had held that once a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been made, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was exhausted and there could be no successive notifications under Section 6 with respect to land specified in one notifications under Section 4(1). A validating ordinance was promulgated to be succeeded by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. The Amendment and Validation Act, 1967 amended Section 5-A of the principal Act to allow for the making of more than one report in respect of land which had been notified under Section 4(1). It also amended Section 6 so that different declarations made from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) were permissible. The Amendment and Validation Act, 1967, also validated all acquisitions which had been rendered invalid by reason of the judgment in V. P. Sharma case. The Amendment and Validation Act, 1967, was challenged. This Court rejected the challenge. It observed "All these decisions lay down that the power to legislate for validating actions taken under statute which were not sufficiently comprehensive for the purpose is only ancillary or subsidiary to legislate on any subject within the competence of the legislature and such Validating Acts cannot be struck down merely because courts of law have declared actions taken earlier to be invalid for want of jurisdiction. Nor is there any reason to hold that in order to validate action without legislative support the Validating Act must enact provisions to cure the defect for the future and also provide that all actions taken or notifications issued must be deemed to have been taken or issued under the new provisions so as to give them full retrospective effect." * 14. It is to be noted that in each of these two cases under the Land Acquisition Act, that Act was amended with retrospective effect. Under the amended Act, the acquisitions that had been rendered invalid by earlier judgments became valid and the validation was effected on the strength of such amendment. 15. In the case of the village of Raipura there was a preliminary notification calling for objections to the extension of the limits of the Kota Municipality to include it, but it was not followed by a final notification. In the case of the village of Ummedganj there was a notification extending the limits of the Kota Municipality to include it, but it had not been preceded by a notification inviting the objections of the public thereto. Later, another notification was published whereby the village of Ummedganj was excluded from the limits of the Kota Municipality. The provisions of Sections 4 to 7 of the 1959 Act and the earlier provisions of the 1951 Act in the same behalf were, therefore, not met in the case of either the village of Raipura or the village of Ummedganj. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that these provisions were mandatory and that judgment has become final. 16. The Validating Act provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 to 7 of 1959 Act or in any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj should be deemed always to have continued to exist and they continue to exist within the limits of the Kota Municipality, to all intents and for all purposes. This provision requires the deeming of the legal position that the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj fall within the limits of the Kota Municipality, not the deeming of facts from which this legal consequence would flow. A legal consequence cannot be deemed nor, therefrom, can the events that should have preceded it. Facts may be deemed and, therefrom, the legal consequences that follow. 17. Sections 4 to 7 remained on the statute book unamended when the Validating Act was passed. Their provisions were mandatory. They had admittedly not been followed. The defect of not following these mandatory provisions in the case of the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj was not cured by the Validating Act. The curing of the defect was an essential requirement for the passing of a valid validating statute, as held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. It must, therefore, be held that the Validating Act is bad in law and it must be struck down. 18. It must be made clear that in the suit that the appellants have filed in the court of the District Judge, Kota, for refund of the amount of octroi paid by them to the Kota Municipality, which is stated to be pending, it shall be open to the defendants to take every defence available to them other than that concluded by this judgment. 19. At the stage when special leave to appeal was granted, no stay was ordered except for the year 1974-75. Counsel on behalf of the Kota Municipality agreed that if the appeals were allowed and the Kota Municipality was required to refund the amount paid by the appellants by way of octroi duty, it would refund the same with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. The time within which the refund would have to be made was left to be determined when the court heard and disposed of the appeals. The Kota Municipality is now directed to refund to the appellants the amounts of octroi duty paid by the appellants to it subsequent to the year amount 1974-75 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the dates of payment till refund or realisation. Such refund shall be made on or before 15-7-1996.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]18. It must be made clear that in the suit that the appellants have filed in the court of the District Judge, Kota, for refund of the amount of octroi paid by them to the Kota Municipality, which is stated to be pending, it shall be open to the defendants to take every defence available to them other than that concluded by thisAt the stage when special leave to appeal was granted, no stay was ordered except for the year 1974-75. Counsel on behalf of the Kota Municipality agreed that if the appeals were allowed and the Kota Municipality was required to refund the amount paid by the appellants by way of octroi duty, it would refund the same with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. The time within which the refund would have to be made was left to be determined when the court heard and disposed of the appeals. The Kota Municipality is now directed to refund to the appellants the amounts of octroi duty paid by the appellants to it subsequent to the year amount 1974-75 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the dates of payment till refund or realisation. Such refund shall be made on or before 15-7-1996