THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus H. H. MAHARAJA BRIJENDRA SINGH.

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 26-08-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1960 
August z6. 
362 
SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PHADESH 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
[1961] 
H. H. l\IAHARAJA BRIJENDiiA SIXGH. 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, 
M. HIDAYATULf,AH a.nd N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition-Sta!ute contravening provisions of Govern-
ment of India Act-Subsequent inclusion in Ninth Schedule of Con-
slit11tion-Constitutionality of--U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilita-
tion of Refu~ees) Act, I948 u::. P. X XV I of 1948), s. r I-Constitu-
tion of India, Art. 31-B and Ninth Sched11le--Conslitution (Fourth 
Amendment) Act, 1955, s. 5. 
The property of the respondent was acquired under the 
U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, I948. 
The respondent challenged the constitutionality of the Act by 
way of a writ petition and though the High Court dismissed the 
petition it held that the two provisos to s. II of the Act were 
invalid as they offended s. 299(2) of the Government of India 
Act. 
Subsequently the Coostitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 
r955, included the C. P. Act in the :-linth Schedule as item 
.'.'\o. IS. 
The appellant contended that the inclusion of the Act 
in the Ninth Schedule protected it under Art. 31-B of the Con-
stitution from any r.hallenge under s. 299(2) of the Government 
of India Act. 
Held, that the U. P. Act could not be assailed on the 
gcound of unconstitutionality based on a contravention of s. 299 
of the Government of India Act. 
The provisions of the Act 
having been speci£ically saved by Art. 3I-B read with the Ninth 
Schedule, the Act could not be deemed to be void or to ever 
have become void on the ground of its having contravened the 
provisions of the Government of India Act. 
Dhirubha Devisingh Gohil v. The Stale of Bo,,1bay, [I955l I 
S.C.R. 69I, relied on. 
Saghir Ahmad v. Tis. Stale of U. P .. [I955] I S.C.R. 707, not 
applicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTIO!'I: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 131 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment a.nd decree dated Feb-
ruary 4, 1954, of the Alla.ha.bad High Court in Civil 
Misc. Writ No. 7976 of 1951. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India 
and O. P. Lal, for the appellants. 
l ~.U.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
363 
V. M. Limaye, Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and S.S. 
Shukla, for the respondent. 
1960. 
August 26. 
ThA Judgment of the Con rt 
was delivered by 
KAPUR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment 
and order of the High Court of Allahabad on a certifi-
cate granted under Arts. 132 and 133(l)(c) of the 
Constitution. 
The respondent herein was the petitio-
ner in the High Court in one of the petitions which 
were filed in that Court;. covering the question which 
has been raised before us. 
The appellants before us 
were the respondents in the High Court. 
The respondent was the Ruler of the State of 
Bharatpur, now a part of Rajasthan, and is the owner 
of the property in dispute known as 'Kothi Kandhari 
,Jadid' in Agra. On January 28, 1950, the Agra 
Improvement Trust-hereinafter called the Trust-
passed a resolution under s. 5 of the U.P. Land Acqui-
sition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, (U.P. 
XXVI of 1948)-hereinafter called the Act-for 
the acquisition of the property in dispute and expres-
sed its willingness to act as " builder " within the 
meaning of the provisions of the Act. The Govern-
ment declared the Trust as the " builder" on May 6, 
1950, and an agreement was entered into on Novem-
ber 6, 1950, in terms of the Act, which was published 
on January 6, 1951. The Trust deposited a sum of 
Its. 57,800 being the estimated cost of the acquisition 
on February 27, 1951, and a notification under s. 7 of 
the Act was published in the U.P. Gazette on July 21, 
1951. 
By sub-s. (2) of s. 7, upon the publication of 
the notification, the land acquired was to vest absolu-
tely in the State. After the re8pondent was served 
with a notice calling upon him to appear before the 
Compensation Officer at Agra, he filed certain objec-
tions challenging the propriety of the acquisition and 
the vires of the Act. It was also alleged that the 
Collector, without deciding the matter, proceeded to 
take possession. 
The respondent, thereupon, filed a 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution· in the 
47 
1960 
The State of 
Vttai Pradesh 
( .... Othe1s 
v. 
1-J. H. ll1aharaja 
Bnjendra Singh 
Kapur ]. 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
i96o 
Allahabad High Court for a writ prohibiting the 
appellants from acquiring his land or interfering with 
The State of 
} 
h 
Th' 

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