SMT. SAIYADA MOSSARRAT versus HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. BHILLAI STEEL PLANT, BHILLAI (M.P.) & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 31-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SMT. SAIYADA MOSSARRAT 
v. 
HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. BHILLAI STEEL PLANT, 
BHILLAI (M.P.) & ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 and Seventh Schedule List 
I Entry 32, 43, 95 and 97-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized 
Occupants) Act, 1971-Constitutional validity of-Fresh consideration 
on different ground. · · 
· 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 
1971: Constitutional v«lidity of-Speedy eviction of unauthorized 
occupants from property of Union Government in the State-Necessity 
for. 
The petUloner was allotted a piece of land on licence by the 
respondent-company. The licence was cancelled on the allegation that 
the petitioner had illegally made encroachment on further land and had 
Illegally raised a structure on the land granted on licence. Proceedings 
were initiated against the petitioner under the Act, and the competent 
E 
authority passed an order of eviction. The Appellate Authority dismis· 
sed the appeal, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's petition, and 
this court refused to grant him special leave. The petitioner then filed a 
Civil Suit which was dismissed for default of appearance. His special 
leave against this order too was dismissed by this Court for default of 
appearance. 
F 
In the present petition under Art. 32, the JJ.etltloner hllli challenged 
the constitutional validity of the Act on the ground that Parliament does 
not have the legislative competence to legislate on the subject. 
The Solicitor-General raising a preliminary objection. It was con· 
G 
tended that the Constitution Bench of this Court had already upheld the 
constitutionality of the Act, in Hari Singh v. Military Estate. Officer, 
(1973] l SCR 515, relied upon. 
Dismissing the writ petition, it was, 
H 
HELD: (1) In the present petition the petitioner has contended 
690 
;: . 
SMT. SAIYADA v. HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. 
691 
that since the subject matter falls squarely under Entry 18 of List II 
(State List) and it does not fall under any Entry under List I or List III, 
the Parliament bas no competence to legislate in respect of the subject 
matter. Since this specific aspect was not debated before the Constitu-
tion Bench, it would not be proper to shut out the petitioner from 
raising the plea by recourse to the argument that the point was con-
cluded in Hari Singh's case. 16950; 696A-B] 
(2) The Public Premises Act is concerned with the eviction of 
those persons who have no authority in law to remain in possession of 
the land belonging to the Union of India. The unauthorised persons may 
be squatters, persons having no rights whatsoever, or persons wlto were 
in occupation by virtue of any agreement but whose right under the 
agreement had come to an end. [699F-G] 
(3) In order to ascertain under which entry the Act in question 
would fall, it is necessary to ascertain what is the subject matter of 
legislation applying the 'pitch and substance' test. [696CJ 
( 4) The subject matter of the legislation, as pronounced in Hari 
Singh's case, is "providing a speedy procedure for eviction of persons in 
unauthorised occupation of public premises." [6960] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
(5) On an analysis of Entry 32 of List I it inter alia emerges that 
while the State can legislate in respect of Union property situated in a 
E 
State, with regard to such legislation In respect of the Union property 
Parliament can enact a legislation in respect of the property belonging 
to the Union of India and the revenue therefrom and in that event the 
legislation enacted by Parliament will prevail as against the law enacted 
by the State. (697G-H; 698A] 
(6) Entry 32 Is wide enough to cover all legislation pertaining to 
the property of the Union of India including the'leglslation for eviction 
of unauthorised occupants from the property belonging to the Union of 
India. Once the conclusion is reached that the legislation falls under 
Entry 32 of List I, it is unnecessary to examine the scope of Entry 18 of 
List III. [699B-CJ 
(7) In so far as the legislation for "providing a speedy procedure 
for eviction of an unauthorised occupant of public premises" is con-
cerned, it is not shown that there is any legislation enacted by the State 
legislature which deals with this subject in s0 far as the property belong-
ing to the Union of India Is concerned. Since there is no such legislation, 
F 
G 
H 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] Supp. 3. S.C.R. 
the

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