LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS 371 and the order of the High Court transferring the appeal to the District .Judge or the Additional District Judge is set aside. It is directed that the appeal be heard by the High Court itself, in the absence of any law to the contrary. There will be no order as to costs throughout, as the ·main respon- dent in this Court and below was a Court itsclC and ordinarily no costs are granted against a Court. Appeal r&/lowed. STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. UNION OF INDIA (B. P. SINHA, c. ]., .JAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAo; J. C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOL_KAR, JJ.) Land, Acqni.<ition-State property-Goal bearing areas- Acqui8ition ·by Union of lnrlia-Parliament, power to enact law-Indian Constitution, if n"ot federal-Sovereignty, if lies in StatM also-Fundamental ri!thts, whether can be claimed by States-"Perso1i" and "Properly'', Connotation of-Coal Be1tring Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (XX of 1957)-Gonstitution of India, Arts. 13, Jl, 7·3, 162,. 245, 246, 248, 249, 254, 294, 298, Seventh Schedule, List I Entries 52, 54, 97, List JI Entries 23, 24, List Ill Entry 42. Under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Develop- ment) A~t, 1957, enacted by Parliament, the Union of India propos~d to acquire certain coal bearing areas in the State of West Bengal. The State filed a suit contending that the Act -did not apply to lands vested in or owned by the State and that if it applied to such lands the Act was beyond the legislative compcten.ce of Parliament. . Held, (p_er Sinha C.J., Imam, Shah, Ayyangar and Mudholkar, JJ.), that upon a proper interpretation of the relevan~ . • • i • • . . , 1962 Lakshmi JVarain v. First Atldit~nal Distlict Jutlt'" Allahabad Sinh1, C. J. 1962 December, 21. 1961 Sto1' of Wul Bmgal •• Union of 11Ulia 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. provisions of the Act it was cicar that the Act applied also to coal bearing areas vested in or owned by the State. The preamble of the Act did not support the argumcut that the Act was intended to acquire only the· rights of individuab and not those ?f the States in coal bearing areas. Though the statement of Objects and Reasons supported the contention of the State it could not be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of the Act. Held, further, (per Sinha C. J., Iman, Shah, Ayyangar and Mudholkarfl. Subba Raoj., contra), that the Coal Be>ring Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, l9j7, is not u/fra vires the powers of Parliament and is valid. Under Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to 1he Constitution, Parlia- ment is competent to make a law for the acquisition for the p1operty of a State. The Constitution of India is not truly Federal in character. The basis of distribution of powers between the Union and States is that only those powers \Vhich are concerned with the regulation of local proble·m arc vested in the States and the residue specially those which tend to maintain the economic, industrial and com.m'!rcial unity of the <:ountry are left to the Union. It is not correct to say that ful1 sovereignty is vested in the States. Parliament which is competent to destory a State cannot be held, on the tl1"ory of absolute sovereignty of the States, to be incompetent to acquire by legislation the property owned by the States. Even if the Comtitution were held to be a Federation and the States regard- ed qua the Union as sovereign, the power of the Union to legislate in respect of the property situate in the States would remain unrestrictc<f. 'fhe p~wer of Parliarnent conferred by Entry 42, List II f, a• acc=ory to the effectuation of the power under Entries 52 and 54, List I, is not restricted by any provi- sion of the Constitution and is capable of being exercised in respect of the property of the States also. From the fact that Art. 294 vests the property in the States and, that Art. 298 empowers the States to transfer the property it does not follow that the property of the States cannot be acquired without a constitutional amendment, Article 294 does not c'>ntain any prohibition a~ainst the transfer of property of the States and if th• property is capable of being transferred by the State it is capable of being acquired. Under s. 127 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Central Government could require the Province to acquire land i s.c.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.