LexHARI SINGH AND ORS. versus THE MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
511 A BARI SINGH AND ORS. v. THE MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. May 3, 1972 [S. M. Snou, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DuA, D. G. B PALEKAR, H. R. KHANNA AND M. H. BEG, JJ.J c D E I! G H Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, ( 15 of 1971), ss. 15 and 20-Validation of eviction orders passed under 1958- Act-Jf constitutionallv valid. When the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, was in force, the Government had two alternative remedies of e~ic tion of per ons in unauthorued occupation of public premises, ll&lllely, one in 11 court of law by instituting a suit for evic1ion, and the other, unoor s. 5 (1) of the Act, which conferred power on the Esta le Otlicec to mue an order of eviction. Orders were passed under s. 5 in 1961 and 1964, evicting the appel- lants, and, writ petitions filed by them in the High Court we1 e dismilsed. While th.!ir appeals in this Court were pend in~. the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant ) Act, 1971, came into force. t repealed th1> 19~8-Act and had retrospective operation from 16th Septem- ber, 1958. Under it, there is only one prooodure available for eviction of persons in unautlwnsed occupation of public premises. Its scheme is that it confers power on the F~tate Officer to issue notice to persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any public premi es to show cause why an order of eviction should not he made, and after considering the gro1Jnds, to pass an order of eviction. 'Premises' are defined to include anv land or any building or part of a building. Section 20 provides that anything done or any action taken 01 purported to have been done or taken under the 1958-Act shall be deemed to he as valid and effective as if such thing or action was done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 1971-Act. Also, '· IS provichs a bar to the juris'iction of the court to entertain a suit or oroceeding in resryect of eviction of any person in unauthorised occupation of pubiic premises. The aooPllants challenged the constitutionality of the 1971-Act aboo in the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, HELD: (Per S. M. Sik)'i, C. J. J. M. Shelat. A. N. Ray, I. D. Dua, D. G. Palekar and H. R. Khanna, JJ.) : (1) The validity pf the 1971- Act deoends on, (a) the legislative competence to Validate anythin~. dcme or actioo taken under the 1958-Act; (b) whether the Legislature pos- sesses competence over the subject m•tter; and (c) whether by valida- tion the I..e~slature has remove;! the defect which the Court had found in the previous Jaw. [523 D; 527 B-FJ . (a) In Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1%7) 3 $.C.R. 399 this Court held that s. 5 of the Punjab Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recoverv) Act, 1959, was v'olative of Art. 14 of th• Constituti"'l <'n the ground that, the •ection left it to the un- guided d'scre'ion of tbt ~oJ,ertor 1<, taken .a<11o' either un~ the o·din~ry Jaw or follow the drastic pro"edure pro'"ded by the section. Assummg that the t 958-Act is uncO..sFtution'l on the .. ame 1>:ro••nd it could not be contended that the 1971-Act could not validate anything done under ue SUPRl!ME COURT REPORTS [1973] 1 S.C.R. the 1958-Act, because, Clld l!>?l-Ad is eft'ectivo from 16th Sep:ember 1958, and provides that the action taken under the 1958-Act is deemed to be taken under the 1971-Act. It i's not a cas-> of the latter Act validat- ing action taken nodei' die earlier Act, · bll! a caae ~. by a deeming provision. acts or thin11s do~ under an. 1nrb'er Act were deemed to be done uniter the latter validatln11 Acl. (522 D-F; 524 E-F; 525 E...,-0 I Mis. Wen Ram11ad lttectrlc Distribution Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 147. followed. Deputy Commisnoner and Collector, Kamrup & Ors. v. Dw1a Nillh &nna, (1%8) I S.C.R. I S.C.R. 561, referred to. (b) The Leg;slature bad legislative competence to enact the 1971-Act and provide a speedy prooedure for eviction of persoos in unauthor'sed occupation of public premises, and to pass the law with retrospective operation. (527 F--GJ ( c) The Legislature can put out of ac•ion retrosnectiwly one of the procedures 1"1!vin~ one !1focedure only availeble and thus remove the vice of discrimination found in Northern India Cattrer9 case. (526 .E-GJ State of Mysore & Anr. v. D. Achiah Chttty etc., [1963) 3 S.C.R. SS. followed. Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Broach
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.