STATE OF BHOPAL AND ORS. versus CHAMPALAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 19-12-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, K.N. WANCHOO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
35 
assuming that the appropriate Government acts honestly 
J96J 
and bona fide. If the appropriate Government refuses to 
-
make a reference for irrelevant considerations, or on ex-
80"'i~!i't:: of 
traneous grounds, or acts mala fide, that, of course, would 
•· 
be another matter; in such a case a party would be entitled T'Boml::,at• 
of 
to move the High Court for a writ of mandamus. 
The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 
would be no order as to costs. 
There 
Appeal dismissed. 
STATE OF BHOPAL AND ORS. 
v. 
CHAMPALAL AND ORS. 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Bhopal .Reclamation and Development of Land (Eradication of Kans) 
Act (Bhopal Xlll of 1954) ss. 4, 7-lf s. 4 is violative of Art. 19(1)(/) 
of the Constitution-Possession by Reclamation officer-If taking p-OSse,.. 
sion within Art. 31(2) of the Constitution-Demand for contribution--
Legality. 
Ga/tndragadlr:ar /. 
The respondents are owners of agricultural land in Bhopal. Their 
1 ands were taken possession of by the appellant 
under 
a notification 
under s. 4 of the Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Land (Eradi-
cation of Kans J Act. The object of this Act was to eradicate by tleep 
tractorisation Kans weeds which are harmful to the productivity of land. 
The Act provides for the taking possession of the land infested with kans, 
after issuing notifications ·under s. 4 of the Act, and for the deep plough-
ing of the land by tractors. The expenses incurred by the Government 
were to be apportioned among the owners in the area whose lands had 
been occupied an(i ploughed. 
Demands were made on the respondents 
whose lands were occupied and tractorised to pay the costs so appor-
tioned. 
Thereupon they filed writ petitions before the Judicial Commis-
sioner challenging the legality of the Act "' well as the legality of the 
levy, even assuming that the Act was valid. The Judicial Commissioner 
allowed the petitions. Thereupon the State appealed to this Court with 
certificate ol' fitness under Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution. 
In the appeals before this Court the same contentions as those which 
were raised before the Judicial Commisisoner were canvassed. 
196J 
Stot1 of Bhopal 
.,. 
Champa Lal 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Held. 
(i) The Act contains no provision for the person interested:: 
having an opportunity to esta&lish that the particular land in which he 
was interested was not kans infested and therefore did not stand in need 
of any eradication operation. Section 4( 1) read in conjunction with the 
power contained in s. 4( 4) coupled with the absence of any provision• 
for entertaining objections would, in the circumstances of there being 
admittedly patches of land in the same tehsil which ha'd been cleared at 
least in 1941 must be 
characterised as 
arbitrary and imposing 
an, 
unreasonable restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property within· 
Art. 19(1 )(f) of the Constitution. 
(ii) The possession of the Reclamation Officer is exclusive and amounts. 
to taking possession within Art. 31(2). The shortness of the duration 
during which the owner is deprived of his possession has no relevancy to-
), 
the question whether ther~ has been a taking of possession of lan'd by 
the State. If the duration is short the compensation payable might be 
small. The exemption from payment of land revenue (luring the period 
of occupation by the State as provided in the proviso to s. 6(2) of the 
Act cannot in any sense be treated as compensation for the deprivation 
of possession, it only 
aUeviates his loss. Section 4( 1) 
read 
v.·ith 
s. 6(1)(h) is unconstitutional as violative of Art. 31(2). 
(iii) Section 7 of the Act is mandatory and that as admittedly there 
was nO compliance \vith it no lawful demand could be made for the 
contribution payable by any landhofder by the Central Government or 
~ 
by the State Government at the instance of the Central Uovernn1ent 
without re1.:oursc to the machinery provided by s. 7. The notice-; of 
den1and were therefore illegal. 
(iv) The extension o( the l\1adhya 
PraJ.c~h Act to the Bhopal area. 
would be of no avrtil to the State because the Act was brought into-
force prospectively 
and not retrospe<:tively. 
If therefore the demand 
when 111ad.:: was illegal or invalid it cannot he sustained on the basis of 
the 
~ladhya Pra'desh Act. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeals 
Nos. 379 t

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