LexK.K. POONACHA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1022 K.K. POONACHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 730 of 2004) SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Constitutional validity of - Challenged on the ground of non- e compliance of Article 31(3) - Held: The 1976 Act cannot be declared unconstitutional or void only on the ground that the Act was not reserved for the consideration of the President and did not receive the assent as per the requirement of Article 31(3) - If a post-Constitution law is within the legislative D competence of the Union or State and does not infringe any of the rights conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution, then the same cannot be declared void on the ground of non- compliance of the procedural requirement of prior recommendation or sanction, if assent is given in the manner E provided under Article 255 - The 1976 Act was enacted for the development of the city of Bangalore and adjacent area and it contains incidental provisions for acquisition of land - It is enacted by Legislature of the State with reference to Entry 5 of List II - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 31(3), 255, F 256; Seventh Schedule List II Entry 5. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 is liable to be declared void on the ground that the same was not reserved for the consideration of the G President and did not receive his assent as per the requirement of Article 31 (3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H 1022 K.K. POONACHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND 1023 ORS. HELD: 1. The Bangalore Development Authority Act, A 1976 cannot be declared unconstitutional or void only on the ground that the same was not reserved for consideration of the President and did not receive his assent. [Para 21] 2.1 Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, deals with pre-Constitution laws and declares that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall be void to B the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part Ill. Article 13(2) injuncts the State from enacting any C law which takes away or abridges the rights enumerated in Part Ill of the Constitution and declares that any law made in contravention of that clause shall be void. Article 13(2) contains a constitutional prohibition against enactment of any law by the State which infringes the-- D rights guaranteed to the citizens and others under Part Ill of the Constitution. Article 31 (1 ), as it stood till 20.6.1979, contained a general injunction against depriving any person of his property except by authority of law. Article 31 (2) laid down that no property shall be requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of law which provides for acquisition and requisitioning of property subject to payment of compensation. Clause (2A) of Article 31 was added by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. This clause clarified the meaning of the words 'acquisition' and 'requisitioning' used in clause (2) and laid down that where a law does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to a corporation owned or controlled by the State, G such law shall not be treated as one providing for compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property despite the fact that it may deprive any person of his property. Article 31(3) laid down that no law enacted by E F the Legislature of a State with reference to clause (2) shall H 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A be effective unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent. This clause of Article 31 did not contain a constitutional inhibition against enactment of law by the Legislature of a State under clause (2), but merely 8 contained a post-enactment procedural provision which was required to be complied with for making such law effective. What was implicit in the language of Article 31 (3) was that the particular law was within the le~islative competence of the State and such law did not violate the C provisions contained in Part Ill or any other provision of the Constitution. The assent given by the President in terms of Article 31 (3) of the Constitution to a law enacted by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.