JAYANTILAL AMRIT LAL SHODHAN versus F.N. RANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 05-11-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
November 5 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
JAYANTILAL AMRIT LAL SHODHAN 
v. 
F.N. RANA AND OTHERS 
(P.B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. SUBBA RAO, 
K.N. 
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Arts. 2S8(1), 13(1)-Notification by 
President entrusting functions to State Officer-If has force of 
law-"Save as expressly provided in the Constitution", interpreta-
tion of-Delegation of powers by State officer-" Enquiry and Report 
by Collector"-Nature of functions-Bombay Reorganisation Act, 
1960 (11 of 1960), ss. 2(1i), 87-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 
1894), ss. 4, SA, 6. 
The President of India issued on July 24, 1959, a notification 
under Art. 2S8(1) of the Constitution entrusting with the consent 
of the Government of Bombay to the Commissioners of Divisions 
in the State of Bombay the functions of the Central Government 
under the Act in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose" 
of the Union. By the Bombay Reorganisation Act 11 of 1960, 
two new states were constituted and the Baroda division was 
allotted to the State of Gujarat. Purporting to exercise! he powers 
entrusted by the notification issned by the President on July 24, 
!9S9, the Commissioner of Baroda Division notified under s. 4(1) 
of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, the appellants' land as being 
needed for a public purpose, and authorised the Special Land 
Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad to perform the 
functions 
of the Collector under the Act. 
After considering the objections 
raised by the appellant to the proposed acquisition, the Special 
Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the Commissioner, 
"" 
who issued the declaration under s. 6(1) of the Act. The appellant 
thereupon moved the High Court of Gujarat under Arts. 226 and 
227 of the Constitution for a writ but his petition was dismissed. 
The case of the appellant was that (I) the President's notification 
under Art. 2S8(1) was ineffective after the partition since the con-
{· 
sent of the Government of the newly formed State of Gujarat to 
the entrustment of functions to its officers bad not been obtained 
as required by Art. 2S8(1); (2) the proceeding under s. SA of the 
Act being quasi-judicial in character, authority to make a report 
thereunder could not be delegated by the Commissioner nor could 
be consider such a report when made. 
Held: (i) (per Gajendragadkar, Shah and Dayal JJ.) Article 
258(1) of the Constitution in effect enables the President to do by 
notification what the Legislature could do by legislation, namely, 
to entrust functions relating to matters to which executive power 
of the Union extends to officers named in the notification. Such 
notification, therefore, amends the Act in respect of which it is 
made by substituting as it were the words of the notification therein. 
5S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
295 
So interpreted it cannot be said that the notification of the President 
1963 
had not the force of law within the meaning of s. 87 read with s. 2(d) 
of the Bombay Reorganization Act. 
Jayanti/al Amrit 
It cannot be assumed simply because the President is the execu-
Lal Shodhan 
tive bead of the Union that the exercise by him of his power 
v. 
under Art. 258(1) has not the force of law. 
The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Ajmer, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 
735, relied on. 
Chanabasappa Shivappa v. Gurppadappa Murigappa, l.L.R. 
1958 Mysore 48, approved. 
Article 258(1) empowers the President to entrust to the State 
only such executive functions as are vested in the Union and are 
exercisable by him on its behalf; it does not authorise him to entrust 
such powers as are expressly vested in the President by the Constitu-
tion and do not, therefore fall within the ambit of Art. 258(1). 
The executive power of the Union extends to all matters in 
respect of which Parliament has power to make law and in respect 
of matters to which the power of Parliament extends. 
The expression "save as expressly provided in the Constitu-
tion" in the proviso to Art. 73(1} is not susceptible of a limited 
interpretation. A constitutional provision authorising the Union 
to exercise its power over matters in respect of which the State 
Legislature has also power to make law, has operation not with-
standing the limitation enacted in the proviso. 
It is well settled that functions which do not fall strictly within 
the field legislative or judicial, must fall in the residuary class execu-
tive and be regarded as such. 
(ii) The 

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