LexSHREE VINOD KUMAR & OTHERS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Octob•r 9. • 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. SHREE VINOD KUMAR & OTHERS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (and connected petition) (S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.} Estates Abolitio11-V alidity of enactment-Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Laml.ed Estates am!. Land Reforms Act, r953 (Himachal rs of z954). The petitioners, who were land-owners of Him11chal Pradesh, challenged the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, x953 (Himachal IS of 1954), said to have been passed by the Legisla- tive Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh functioning under the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of 1954). The impugned Act was introduced as a bill in the first session of the Legislative Assembly of the Old Himachal Pradesh elected under the Government of Part C States Act (49 of x95x). Before the bill could be passed, the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of r954) came into force on July x, 1954, abolishing the old Act and uniting the two States into one. While the Legislative Assembly for the New State was yet to be constituted, on July 7, 1954, the Governor issued the following notification,-" The Lieutenant Governor, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Government of Part C Sta\es Act, x95r (49 of x95x), has been pleased to dir~ct that the Second Session, r954, of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly will commence from Monday, the r6th August, r954, at CJ-30 a.m. in the Council. Chamber, Simla-4." It was at this session that the impugned Act wa$ passed. Its provisions were said to be drastic and to infringe Arts. r4, r9 and 3r of the Constitution. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that apart from violating those Articles, the impugned Act was void as it had not been passed by a duly constituted legislature. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the res- pondent that under the new Act the members of the Old Legisla- tive Assembly must be deemed to constitute the legislature for the New State and it was as such called by the Governor. Held, that the contention raised by the respondent was with- out substance and must be negatived. It was apparent that the so called Assembly which the Governor had convened and which purported to pass the impugned Act was not the Legislative Assembly of the New State constituted under the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of 1954) and as such the Act could not be regarded as a valid piece of le&'islation. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 161 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 120-122, z958 164, 199, 213, 255, 260, 363, 378, 402 & 407 of 1955, 6, S ltr ee V inoll 7, 43, 120, 126, 142, 153, 154, 198, 216 & 223 of 1956, Kumar .s. Ors. 32, 49, 60, 61, 141 & 143 of 1957, 3, 7 & 104 of 1958. v. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution for State of Hima<al h f f f d l . h Pralleslt t e en orcement o un a.menta. rig ts. Achhru Ram and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioners in Petition No. 120/55. D. R. Prem and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 120, 121, 122, 164, 199, 213, 255, 260, 363, 402 & 407 of 1955, 6, 7, 43, 125, 142, 154, 198, 216 & 223 of 1956, 32, 60 & 143 of 1957, 7 & 104 of 1958. D. R. Prem and. S. D. Sekkri, for the petitioner in Petition No. 378 of 1955. D.R. Prem and P.O. Aggarwal, for the petitioner in Petition No. 120/56. D. R. ·Prem and Raghu N atk, for the p~titioner in Petition No. 49/57. D.R. Prem and K. L. Mehta, for the petitioner in Petition No. 153/56. Y. Kumar, for the petitioner in Petitions Nos. 61 & 141 of 1957 & 3 of 1958. H. N. Sanyal, .Additional Solicitor General of India, H.J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 1958. October 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS, C. J.-By ea.ch of these 32 petitions under Das c. J. Art. 32 of our Constitution, which have been heard together, the respective petitioners challenge the con- stitutional validity of the Hima.cha.l Pradesh Aboli- tion of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Hima.cha.l 15 of 1954) which is said to have been passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himacha.l Pradesh created by the Rima.cha.I Pra- desh and Bila.spur (New State) Act (32 of 1954). On November 23, 1954, the President of India gave his assent to the Bill which on being so a.ssented 'to 21 162
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.