STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus NARAIN SINGH

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 08-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 821 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
NARAIN SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 2002) 
JULY 8, 2009 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND ASOK KUMAR 
• 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and 
Validation) Act, 1996 - Challenge to - High Court held that C 
the Amendment Act was ultra vires to the extent it sought to 
nullify an earlier decision of Supreme Court on the Himachal 
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 - On appeal, Held : The 
Amendment was necessitated in view of certain factors which 
are predominantly in public interest and in interest of land D 
revenue, land settlement and for updating the same - In fact 
the amendments were made for effective implementation of 
the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 
-Where there is a competent legislative provision which 
retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a ·E 
judgment, said exercise is a valid legislative exercise 
provided it does not transgress any other constitutional 
' 
limitation - In the instant case, the amendment Act removed 
the defect of previous law and therefore, the validation 
exercise was perfectly sound and cannot be faulted with -
F 
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953. 
The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment 
; 
and Validation) Act, 1996 was purportedly enacted to 
remove and cure the defects in the Himachal Pradesh 
Land Revenue Act, 1953. 
G 
The High Court held that the Amendment Act was 
ultra vires to the extent it sought to nullify an earlier 
821 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A decision of Supreme Court on the Himachal Pradesh 
Land Revenue Act, 1953. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD :1.1. From the statement of objects and 
B reasons for enacting the Himachal Pradesh Land 
Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, it is clear 
that the amendment was necessitated in view of certain 
factors which are predominantly in public interest and the 
said amendment has been made in view of the interest 
C of land revenue, land settlement and for the purpose of 
updating the same. In fact the amendments were made 
for effective implementation of the provisions of the 
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953. [Paras 20 
and 21] [834-G-H; 835-A] 
D 
1.2. The power of the Sovereign legislature to 
legislate within its field, both prospectively and 
retrospectively cannot be questioned. Where there is a 
competent legislative provision which retrospectively 
E removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment, the 
said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it 
does not transgress any other constitutional limitation. 
[Paras 26 and 30] [836-C-D; 837-F-G] 
1.3. Where there is a mere.'validation without the 
F 
defect being legislatively removed the legislative action 
will amount to overruling the judgment by a legislative fiat 
and that will be invalid. In the instant case the amendment 
Act has removed the defect of the previous law and 
therefore, the validation exercise is perfectly sound and 
G cannot be faulted with. [Para 33] [839-D] 
H 
K. Nagaraj & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and 
another (1985) 1 SCC523; G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa 
(1995) 5 SCC 96; BhubaneshwarSingh & another v. Union 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 823 
~ 
of India & others (1994) 6 SCC 77; Shri PrithviCotton Mills A 
Ltd. and another v. Broach Borough Municipality andothers 
(1969) 2 SCC 283; Indian Aluminium Company etc. etc. v. 
State ofKerala and others AIR 1996 SC 1431; Comorin 
Match Industries (Pvt.)Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 
1996 SC 916; Meerut Development Authority etc. v. Satbir B 
Singh and others AIR 1997 SC 1467; State of Tamil Nadu 
v. Mis. Arooran Sugars Limited AIR 1997 SC 1815; Indra 
Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 498; Rai Ramkrishna 
and othersetc. v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1667; Satnam 
Overseas (Export) andothers v. State of Haryana and another c 
(2003) 1 sec 561 and State of Bihar and others v. State 
Pensioners Samaj (2006) 5 SCC 65, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1985) 1 sec 523 
relied on 
Para 24 
D 
(1995) 5 sec 96 
relied on 
Para 25 
(1994) 6 sec 11 
relied on 
Para 26 
(1969) 2 sec 283 
relied on 
Para 27 
E 
AIR 1996 SC 1431 
relied on 
Para 28 
AIR 1996 SC 1916 
relied on 
Para 29 
~ 
AIR 1997 SC 1467 
relied on 
Para 31 
AIR 1997 SC 1815 
relied on 
Para 32 
F 
·t· 
AIR 2000 SC 498 
relied on 
Para 33 
AIR 1963 SC 1667 
relied on 
Para 34 
(2003) 1 sec 561 
relied
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.