B. SHANKARA RAO BADAMI & ORS. versus STATE OF MYSORE & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S, SHANKARA RAO BADAMI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
December 4, 1968 
[M, HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RilµsWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N, GROVER, JJ.) 
Constltllllon of India, 1950, Arts. 31, 31A, Entry 33, List I, 
Entry 
36, Ust JI and Entry 42, Lisi 111 of 1th. Scheduk-Mysore (Personal and 
Mucellaneous) lnams Abolition 
Act (Mys. I of 1955), 
constitutional 
validity of-If can be challenged on the ground of violaticm of Art, 31(2)-
lf condition regarding public 
purpose and 
payment of compensation 
could be Implied In the word 'acquisition' in Entries. 
By virtue of a notification under s. 1 ( 4) of the Mysore (Personal and 
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the Inarn villages of the peti-
tioners vested in the State of Mysore. 
The petitioner challenged the 
validity of the Act on two grounds, namely : ( I ) that the compensation 
provided by the Act was not the market value of the property at the 
time of acquisition and since it did not provide for an adequate compen-
salton as a 'just equivalent' there was a violation of Art. 31 (2); and (2) 
that the impugned Act was beyond the legislative competence of the 
Mysore Lea1slature under Entry 36 of List II and Entry 42 of List W 
to the 7th Schedule as the Entries stood before the 7th Amendment of 
the Cqnstitution, becaU.., ( i) the existence of public purpose and the 
obligation to pay compensation are necessary concomitants of compulsory 
acquisitioa of property, and so, the term 'acquisition' must be construed 
u importina by necessary implication the two conditions of public pur· 
pose and payment of ·adequate compensation, and (ii) the words 'subject 
to the provisions of Entry 42, List III' in Entry 36 of List II rein!orce 
the argument. that a law with respeet to· acquisition of property made 
under Entry 36 shoWd be exercised subject to· the two-fold restriction as 
to public purpose and payment of compensation both of which are referred 
to in Entry 42; List Ill. 
HELD : ( 1 }(a) The impugned Act provides for the acquisition of 
ri&ht• of inarndars in inam estates and it. is intended to abolish all inter-
mediate holders and to establish direct relationship between the Govern-
ment and occupants of land in· lnam villages in respect of which noti· 
ftcations had been issued. The legislation was undertaken as a part of 
aararia~ reform which the Mysore State Legislature proposed to brine 
about m. t!I! State. TherefOre, · the impugned Act is a law providing for 
th• acqu1S1tion by the State of any .estate or of any rights therein or for 
the extinguishment or modiftcation of such rights as contemplated 
by 
Art. 31A and hence, the impugned Act is protected from attack in any 
court on the ground that it contrl!\·enes Art. 31 (2). (9 G-H; 10 A-Bl 
(b) The ratio of the two decisions ii) State ol Madras v. Namasivaya 
MudalilJI', [1964] 6 S.C.R. 936 and Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Sp!, Dy. Collec-
tor, 11.965] 1 S.C.R. 614, in which it was held that the principle Jf Bela 
Baner1ee:s. ~ase, [1954] S:C.R. 558 t)iat the _Legislature in making a law 
of acqlJ!Siti~n must provide for a 'iust eqmvalent' as compensation, has 
no appl1eation to the present case, because, those two cases related to 
legislation not dealing with agrarian reform and the protection of Art. 
3 lA was not available to either of the statutes challenged in those cases. 
[10 F; 11 A-Bl 
2 
SUPREM,E COURT REPORTS 
' 
'• 
[196913 S.C.R. 
(2) (i) Under the .common law of eminent domain the State cannot 
take the property of its subject unI .. s such property is 
required for a 
public purpose and without compensating the owner for its loss. 
But, 
when these limitations are expressly provided for in Art. 31(2) and it 
is funher enacted that no law. shall be made which takes away or abridges 
those saf~guards, and any such law, if made, shall be void. there can 
be no room for implication, and the words 'acquisition of property' 
in 
Entry 36 must be understood in their natural sense of the mere act of 
acquiring property without importing 
into the phrase an obligation 
to 
pay compensation or a condition as to the, existc:!nce of a public purpose. 
The entries in the Lists of the VU Schedule are designed to define and 
delimit the respective ·areas of legislative competence of the Union and 
State Legislatures and the principle of the maxim expressum facit cessare 
tacitu1n, makes it inappropriate to treat the obligation to pay compen· 
sation as implici
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.