LexMAHENDRA LAL JAINI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J:J62
Prem Chand Garg
v.
'xcis1 Commissiona,
U. P., A//ah•b•d
Shah, J.
1962
November, 7.
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
calling upon the petitioners to furnish security of
Rs. 2,500/- is set aside. There will be no order as to
costs.
MAHENDRA LAL JAIN!
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND OTHERS
(B. P. StNHA, c. J., P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WA'WHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA
and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Compulsory
acquisition--J>ernianent
Lease-Statute
declaring transfer vaid-1Vo provision for cornpensation-F/tatute,
if provides for compulBOry acquisition-Gonstituti'.onality of-
Doctrive of eclipse-If not applicable to post-Gon.stitution
stat11tes-U.P. L1ind Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act,
1952 (U.P. I5. of J.1152), s. 3-Gonstitution of India Arts. 13,
JI-Constitution (1i'ourth Amendment) Act, J9,55.
Forest-Declaration as resuve forest-Statute providing
for interim confrol-Gonstitntionality of-Indian /i'orest Act;
1.927 (IU of 1.927), Ghs. lI and JI-Indian 1i'ore$t (U.P. Amen.d-
ment) Act, 1.956 (U.P. ,; of l.9!jli), s. 3.
By a registered lease dated June l 4, 1952, one M granted
a perpetual lease of certain lands to the petitioner.
Formally
a large nun1ber of trees
~tood on these lands and the lease deed
recittd that the entire land had been cleared of the trees and
possession given to the petitioner who was made a hereditary
tenant of the land. The U. P. Zamindari .,..bolition and Land
Ref arms Act, 195 l, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition
Act) was made applicable from July I, 1952, In the mean-
time the U. P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act,
i952 (hereinafter referred to as the Transfer Act) ~'as passed
which came into force with retrospective effect from May 21,
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
913
1952.
By this Act all transfers made hy intermediaries after
May 21, 1952, were declared void.
The petitioner was ordered
to desist from clearing the land and from doing anything
contrary to the U. P. Private Forests Act, 1948. On March 23,
1955, the respondent issued a notification under s. 4 of the
Indian Forests Act 1927, decla.ring that it had been decided to
constitute certain lands including the lands in dispute a "reserve
forest'".
Later, a proclamation under s. 6 was issued calling
for objections from claimants but the petitioner did not file any
objections. In March 1956, the Indian Forest (U. P. Amend·
ment) Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Amend-
ment Act) was passed which introduced a new Ch. VA consist-
ing ss. 38A to 38G in the Forest Act.
A fresh notification was
issued
prohibiting variou' acts mentioned in
s. 38B.
The
petitioner contended that the Transfer Act and the Forest
Amendment Act were unconstitutional and that the restrictions
imposed upon him under these two Acts were illegal.
The res-
pondent contended that the two Acts were valid and that the
petitioner acquired no right under the lease and had no right to
maintain a writ petition under Art. 32.
Held, that so long as the lease stood, the petitioner had a
right to maintain the petitio!L The lease created a right in
presenti and not merely some future right. The fact that the
nature of the right was disputed did not affect the right to
maintain the petition.
Held, further, that the Transfer Act was unconstitutional.
It deprived the petitioner of his property without providing for
payment
of any compensation and contravened Art. 31.
The Transfer Act was law for acquisition of property when it
was passed in 1952 and the constitution (Fourth Amendment)
Act, !955, which laid down that a law which did not provide
for the transfer of ownership or right to possession to the State
was not a law for the compulsory acquisition or requisition of
property, was not applicable to it.
The constitutionality of a
law had to be judged on the basis of the Constitution as it stood
at the time the law was passed, subject to any retrospective
amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution (Fourth
Amendment) Act, 1955, could not be applied to the Transfer
Act by virtue of the doctrine of eclipse. This doctrine was
applicable to pre-Constitution laws but not to post-Constitution
laws.
State of West Bengal
v. Subodh Gopal Bose
fl954/
S.C.R. 587, Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U. P., [1955],I S.C.R.
707, Karam Singh v.
Nilial Khan, A. I. R. (1957) All.
549.
{3umhay Dyeing and Manufacturing Go. Ltd.
v.
The State of
1962
Mah~11dra Lal JamExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.