DHIRUBHA DEVISINGH GOHIL versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 11-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
691 
that condition 4(a) and special condition 3 expressed 
as they are at present are void and have 110 legal effect 
as against the fundamental right of the appellant under 
article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 
We express no opinion upon the first contention 
advanced by the appellant. The 
appellant 
will 
get 
his costs from the respondent in this Court and in the 
Court below. 
Appeal allowed. 
DHIRUBHA DEVISINGH GOHIL 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY. 
('NITH CONNECTED APPEALS] 
[MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE. 
JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Constitution of India (Fiw Amendment) Act, 1951, Art. 31-B 
-Government of lndia 
Act, 1935 (25 
and 26 Geo. 5 CH. 42), 
s. 299-Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition 
Act, 1949-(Bombay 
Act LXII of 1949)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution. 
Held, that the validity 
of the 
Bombay 
T;;iluqdari Tenure 
Abolition 
Act, 
1949 (Bombay Act LXII 
of 
1949) cannot be 
questioned on the 
ground that it takes away or abridges the 
fundamental 
rights conferred 
by the 
Constitution 
of 
India 
in 
view of enactment of art. 31-B 
which has 
been 
inserted 
in the 
Constitution by the First Amendment thereof in 1951 and 
in view of the . Act having been specifically enumerated as item 
No. 4 in the Ninth Schedule. 
On the language used in art. 31-B of the Constitution of India 
the validity of Bombay Act LXII of 1949 cannot also be challenged 
under s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. 
The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh 
of Darbhanga and Others ( [ 1952] S.C.R. 889) distinguished. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeals 
Nos. 188, 188(A), 188(B) and 188(E) of 1952. 
Appeals under article 133(1)(c) of the Con:ititution 
of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th 
December, 1951. of the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay in 
Civil Applications Nos. 409, 410, 411 and 
780 of 1951. 
1954 
R, M. Seshadri 
v •. , 
District 
Magistrat• 
Tanjore 
Ghulam Hasan :J. 
Octob.r 11. 
1954 
DhUubha 
Devisingh Go'kil 
·v. 
The State ef 
Bombay. 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955J 
C. G. Shastri and Naunit Lal for the appellant in 
Civil Appeal No. 188 of 1952. 
N. C. Chatterjee 
(Onkar 
Nath 
Srivastva 
and 
Rajinder Narain, with him) 
for appellants in Civil 
Appeals Nos. 188(A), 188(B) and 188(E) of 1952. 
M. C. 
Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and 
C. 
K. 
Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus 
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for 
the 
respondents in all the appeals. 
1954. October IL The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
JAGANNADHADAS 
J .-These 
are 
appeals 
by 
leave 
granted by the High Court of Bombay under article 
133(1)(c) of the Constitution against its common judg-
ment disposing of certain applications under article 226. 
The short point involved in these appeals 1s whether 
the 
Bombay Taluqdari 
Tenure 
Abolition Act, 1949, 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) is valid in law. 
The impugned Act, as its very name indicates, was for 
the purpose of ~bolishing Taluqdari tenures in Bombay. 
Section 3 of the Act enacts that with effect from the 
date on which the Act was to come into force the 
taluqdari tenure wherever it prFailed shall be deemed 
to have beeri 
abolished. Under 
section 5(I)(a) all 
taluqdari lands are and shall be liable to the payment of 
land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the 
Bombay Land 
Revenue Code and the rules made there-
under. Under section 6, broadly stated, all the items 
of property which are comprised within the taluqdari 
and belong to the talqudar vest in the Government as 
its property and all rights held by the taluqdar in such 
property shall be deemed to 
have been extinguished. 
Section 7 provides 
for payment of 
compensation in 
respect of the property 
so 
vested 
and 
rights 
so 
extinguished. It also specifies the principles for and the 
manner of assessing and granting that 
compensation. 
Section 14 provides for compensation 
with 
reference 
to the provisions of 
the Land Acquisition Act being 
payable in respect of any of the rights 
extinguished 
but not covered 
by the 
provisions of section 7 or 
any other section of the Act. These 
broadly are the 
.....
( 
.. 
.. 
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
693 
main features of the impugned Act relevant for the 
present purpose. 
The attack on the validity of the Act with reference 
to these provisions is 
that the Act is expropriatory, 
that it i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.