HUKAM CHAND ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 22-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

896 
HUKAM CHAND ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
(with connected appeal) 
August 22, 1972 
(K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) 
Act, 
1954-
S.40--Rule making power-Does not confer power to nuike rules retro-
actively, 
Rule making:--Retroactive rule making-Provision for laying on the 
-Table 11:ould not prevent courts from deciding rule ultra vires. 
Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) 
Act, 1954, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by S.40 of the 
Act, provided that displaced person having verified claim· in respect of 
a,Rncultural land. had to be, as far as possible, paid con1pensation 
by 
al!o(;ncnt of agricultural land. 
By amendment No. XXXIX dated Feb-
ruary 1960. the Central Government added an Explanation to rule 49 
wl1ich. stated that the expression 'agricultural lan:.l' 1neant agricultural 
land situated in a rural area. 
The Explanation \Va'5. to be d.ee1ned always 
to have been inserted. 
On the question whether the Central Government 
.had the power to give retrospe.:tivc effect to the Explanation. 
HELD : The Central Government acted in. excess of its power in so 
far as ir gave retorspective effect to the Explanation to rule 49. 
There is no provision in S.40 which, either expressly or by 
neces~ 
sarv iinplication, show that the Central Governn1ent had been vested 
with power to make rules with retrospective effect. 
The 
extent 
and 
amplitude of the rule making power would depend upon and be g~··zrned 
by the lan~ua~e of the section. 
An authority vested with the power ot 
making subordinate legislation ha,~ to act within the limits of its po\ver 
and cannot transgress the same. i.9000] 
Cannapore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. '" Collector of Castoms 
and Centml Excise, Cochin and Ors. r,1970] 2 S.C.R. 830, B.S. Vadera 
ttc. v. Union of India and Others, [.1968] 3 S.C.R. 575 and The Income 
Tax Officer. A/leppy v. M. C. Ponnoose and Others etc. [I969J 2 S.C.C. 
352, referred to. 
The fact that the rules framed under the Act have to be laid before 
eac!h f{ouse of Parliament \vould not confer va1idity on a rule if it is 
. · made not in confirmitv with S.40 of the Act. 
The act of the Central 
Government in" Jaying the rules before Parlia1ncnt v.:ou1d not prevent the 
·Courts !'rom scrutinizing the validity of the rules and holding thetn to 
he 11/!m vires. [9020] 
. · .Cr;;;es oo Statute Lpw. Sixth Edition. pp. 304-306 referred to. 
· f"()VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeals Nos. 1031, 
1094'.--1095 of 1967. 
. 
'}6J?.PMl by special leave under Article 136 and 133 of the 
· • '(:qr;,<;fitti.tion oF India frcm the common judgment dated Septem-
• • tefi 3. 1966 ~ind April 21, 1966 of the Punjab High Com! at 
....... · 
.. :_ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
HUKAM CHAND v. UNION (Khanna, J.) 
897 
Delhi (Circuit Bench) in Letter Patent Appeal No. 60-DI Hl65 
and Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 59-D/62 and 73-D/65 respectively 
and 
Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1968. 
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated 
April 21, 1966 of the Punjab High Court at Delhi (Circuit 
Bench) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 58-D of 1962. 
S. K. Mehta, R. A. Gupta. K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamwwl-
din, for the appellants (in all the appeals). 
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor-General of India, S. P. Nayar 
and 
B. D. Sharma for the respondents (iiJ. all the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Khanna, J. This judgment would dispose of four appeals 
No. 1031, 1094 and 1095 of 1967 and 177 of 1968 which are 
directed against the judgments of the 
Punjab High Court. 
Appeals Nos. 1094 of 1967, 1095 of 1967 and 177 of 1968 have 
been filed on certificate of fitness granted by the High .Court, while 
appeal N . l 031 of 1967 has been filed by special leave. 
The 
common question which arises for determination in these four 
appeals is whether in exercise of the powers conferred by section 
40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) 
Act, 1954 (Act 44of1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 
the Central Government could amend rule 49 of the Displaced 
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rdes, 1955 (here-
inafter referred to as the rules) with retrospective effect. 
Arguments have been addressed in appeal No. 177 of 1968 and 
it is stated that the decision in that appeal would govern the other 
appeals also. 
Prithvi Chand appellant in appeal No. 177 of 19

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.