LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus RAMJLLAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
5 5 'l STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAMllLAL & ORS. October 12, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Punjab Pre-emption Act I of 1913-Notification dated September 13, 1"62, under s. 8(2) of the Act whether issued mala fide-Party alleging m1la fide whether must name officer or officers misusing authtJrity of State for collateral purpose-Such burden would be intolerable. A B Surinder Kumar and Virender Kumar (defendants in the suit) pur- C chased on M'!)' 9, 1958 a plot of land in District Guriaon. On January 9, 1959 the plaintiffs filed a suit in the. Civil Court to pre-empt the _sale. On November 16, 1961 the Qovernment of Punjab issued in exercise of the power conferred by s. 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, a notification declaring "that no rights of pre-emption shall exist with. res · pect to urban of village immovable property or agricultural land when purchased by any person for setting up or expan.sion of any industry in the State with the permission of the· Director of Industries, Punjab.'' By D order dated February 16, 1962 the Civil Court passed a decree for pre- emption conditionally on payment of the amount for which the property was sold. The Civil Court found that the defendants had failed to es- tablish that they intended to establish a factory on the land in question. The defendants appealed to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge against the decree of the Trial Court. Thereafter the Government of Punjab issued another notification on September 3,1962, that the Gover- • nor of Punjab was pleased to order that "no right of pre-emption shrul exist with respect to the sale of land. described in the Schedul~ to this Notification made on the 9th May, 1958, · in favour of Messrs. Sunnder Kumar and Virender Kumar, opposite Railway Station. Faridabad for the establishment of a factory for manufacl\Ire of cork products". In the Schedule was described the · prpperty aforesaid purchased by the defendents. The plaintiffs then moved a petition in the High C9urt chal- lenging the validity of the Notification dated September 3, 1962 among F others on the ground that in issuing the order the Government acted mala fide. The High Court held that the notification extinguishing the right of pre-emption in the property .issued during the pendency of the appeal did not disentitle the plaintiffs to maintain ·their claim of pre- emption already exercised and in respect of . which a decree was granted to them. The notification .dated September 3, 1962 was held to have been issued ma/a fide and on that account invalid though s. 8(2) of the G, Punjab Act I of 1913 was held not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. With special leave the State of Punjab appealed to this Court. HELD : The High Court rightly h,eld on the facts that the impugned notification was issued ma/a fide. The · plaiI!tiffs who claimed that they had a right to pre-empt the sale filed a suit against the defendants and obtained a decree. On the finding of the High Court it was clear that e/<cept disclosing th~t the defendants intended to construct a factory, Di nothing more was said. The State Government still proceeded to exclude "'I from the operation of the Act the land so as to defeat the right of pre- emption exercised by the plaintiffs in respect of which a decree was pasoed I c D G H PUNJAB V. RAMJILAL (Shah, /.) 551 by the Civil Court. The Stale Government had not in their affidavit satisfactorily explained the circumstances in which the order was passed. The conclusion of the High ·Court was borne out by the evidence and no ground was made out calling for interference in this appeal by special leave. [,554 E; 556 B-C] The contention on behalf of the Stale that the party alleging that the action of the State was not bona fide must name the officer or officero gnilty -Of conduct which justifies an inference that the official act was done for a collateral purpose, could not be ·accepted. It would be placing .an intolerable burden of preuf of a. just claim to require a party alleging mala fides of Stale action to aver in his petition and to prove by positive eYidence that a particular officer was responsible for misusing the autho- rity of the State by taking action for a collateral purpose. [555 F-H] 1Tbe imp111ned notification having been held invalio the question whether 1. 8 ( 2.) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act wu ultra vim Art. 14 of the Con1tltutlon did
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.