STATE OF ORISSA versus CHANDRA SEKHAR SINGH BHOI ETC.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 15-07-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
CHANDRA SEKHAR SINGH BUOi ETC. 
July 15, 1969 
[J.C. SHAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Constitution of India-Art. 31-A pro••iso 2-'·Law for the time being 
in force"-O"iss<1 Land Reforms Act 16 of 1960-Ch. Iv: containing ceil-
ing provisions not brought into force-Chapter IV emended b,v 
Act 15 
of 1965 and new ceiling provisions substituted fixing compensation not at 
market value-Chapter IV of Act 16 of 1960 if "law in force" within 
Article 31-A, proviso 2. · 
The Consutution.of India, Art. 31-A, proviso 2, guarantees to a person. 
for compulsory acquisition of his Jand, the right to compensation which 
1 
is not less than the market value when the land is within the ceiling limit 
applicable to him under a law for.., the time being in force. Section 1 (3) 
of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960~ provided that the Act was to come 
into force in whole or i1,1 part on such dates as the Government may from 
time to time by notification appoint. 
Certain provisions of the Act were 
brought into force by n.otifications. 
But Chapter IV of the Act dealing 
with ceiling of holdings .of land was not brought into force. 
The Act Y.'as 
amended by Act 13 of 1965. The amending Act deleted Chapter IV and 
substituted fresh provisions. 
Chapter IV as amended dealt with ceiling 
and disposal of excess land and provided fof compensation at :fifteen times 
the fair and equitaQle re:nt. In the High Court the respondent land-holders 
urged that when Act 16· of 1960 was enacted it became law in force and 
the Ct'!iling limit prescriPed thereby became effective even though Chapter 
IV was not brought into force by notification under secf1on 1 ( 3) of the 
Act that since the Amepding Act 15 of 1965 sought to, r•'5trict the ceiling 
limit and to vest the sufplus land in the government there was compulsocy 
acquisition of land whiCh: could be valid only if the law provided for pay-
ment to the land-holder the market value of that part of the surplus land 
which was1 within the c~iling limit under Act 16 of 1960. The Higli Courl 
accepted the contention· and struck down Chapter IV of the Act as uncon-
stitutional and invalid. .It was _of the vie·N, relying on this Court's decisior 
in Thangal Kunju M1fPaliar's case, that the expression "law in force' 
had to be "construed otily in the constitutional sense and not in the sens1 
of its actual operativeness." In appeal by the State, 
HELD : Allowing the appeal : 
I 
A law cannot be said to be in force unle~s it is brought into op(;ratio1 
by legislative enactment or by the exercise of authority by a 
d~legat 
empowered lo bring it: into.operation. 
The theory of a ~tatute being "i 
operation in a constitutional sense" has no validity. 
T'he decision of thi 
Court in Thangal Kunju Mudaliar lends no support tc the view expresse 
by the High Court. 
There this Court held that s. I (3) of Travancor 
Act 14 of 1124 (fvf.E;) \vas an ''existing la\v" on the date of the merge 
of the States of Travancore and Cochin and the power to bring into fore 
the provisions of the Travancore Act was exercisable by th..:: successor State 
Jt was not held that the other provisions of the Act were in force eve 
before an appropriate· notification was issued. [599 B-C: 600 C-DJ 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1970] I S.C.R. 
Jn the present case the law relating to rhc ceiling limit, rf::., c:haptcr 
IV Clf Act 
16 of 
1960 
was 
never operative 
by a notification 
and 
was 
repealed 
by 
Act 
15 
of 
1965. 
'fhcrcforc 
there 
\\·a) 
no 
ceiling limit applicable to the land holders under any .. l.n~' for the time 
being in force" \l:hic:1 atlract~d the application of the SL'cond proviso to 
Art. 31-A. [600 E] 
Tlrangal Kunju Mudaliar \'. M. Venkite1cliafa111 Potri, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 
1196; explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No<. 1017, 
to 1027, 1029 to 1032, 1034 to 1037, 1901 to 1906 and 854 of 
1968. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 30, 1967 
of the Orissa High Court in O.J.Cs. Nos. 329 of 1965 etc. 
C. B. Aganvala a,nd R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in a11 
the appeals). 
II. R. Gokhale, Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for 
the respondents (in all the appeals). 
The iudgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. The State of Orissa has appealed to this Court against 
the judgment of the State High Court declaring "unconstitutional 
and invalid" Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) 
A<;t 15 of 1965. 
The O

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