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

The respondent herein was the petitioner in the High Court in one of the petitions which were filed in that Court covering the question which has been raised before us. The appellants before us were the respondents in the High Court.2. The respondent was the Ruler of the State of Bharatpur, now a part of Rajasthan, and is the owner of the property in dispute known as Kothi Kandhari Jadid in Agra. On January 28, 1950, the Agra Improvement trust-hereinafter called the Trust-passed a resolution under S. 5 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948 (U. P. Act XXVI of 1948) -hereinafter called the Act - for the acquisition of the property in dispute and expressed its willingness to act as builder within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. The Government declared the Trust as the "builder on May 6, 1950, and an agreement was entered into on November 6, 1950, in terms of the Act, which was published on January 6, 1961. The Trust deposited a sum of Rs. 57,800 being the estimated cost of the acquisition on February 27, 1951 and a notification under S. 7 of the Act was published in the U. P. Gazette on July 21, 1951.By sub-s. (2) of S. 7, upon the publication of the notification, the land acquired was to vest absolutely in the Safe. After the respondent was served with a notice calling upon him to appear before the Compensation Officer at Agra, he filed certain objections challenging the propriety of the acquisition and the vires of the Act. It was also alleged that the Collector, without deciding the matter, proceeded to take possession. The respondent, thereupon, filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court for a writ prohibiting the appellants from acquiring his land or interfering with his rights. This petition, was dismissed by the High Court on February 2, 1954. But certain findings were given to which the appellants have taken objection. In its judgment the High Courtthese petitions the prayer is that the Court may be pleased to grant a writ, direction or other suitable order prohibiting the State Government from acquiring the petitioners land or interfering with their rights in any other manner, and to grant such other suitable relief as the Court may deem fit. At the hearing, however, learned counsel for the petitioners stated more specifically that the relief which the petitioners sought was a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the State Governments Notification under S. 7 of the Act made on 11th July, 1951, or, in the alternative, the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Compensation Officer in calculating the compensation payable to them under the Act to disregard the two provisos of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of therespondent submitted in the High Court that the Act contravened the provisions of Art. 31 (2) and was not saved by the provisions of art. 31(5) of the Constitution and that the Act infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution and several other contentions were also raised. The relevant provision of the Act which requires consideration is S. 11 which runs as(1) Whenever any land is acquired under S. 7 or 9 there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the Compensation Officer, in accordance with the principles set out in clauses first, second and third of sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:Provided that the market value referred to in clause first of the said sub-section shall be deemed to be the market value of such land on the date of publication of the notice under S. 7 or 9, as the case may be, or on the first day of September, 1939, whichever is less:Provided further that whether such land has 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.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 Courtdo 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.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.

Court's reasoning:
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.