THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus MRS. BELA BANERJEE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 11-12-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1953 
The Union of 
India 
v. 
Madan Gopal 
Kabra. 
Palaf!fali Sastri 
C.J. 
1953 
55S 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954} 
disappeared except, of course, in regard to matters m 
which such distinction has been preserved by the 
Constitution itself, 
e.g., by article 238 
and article 371. 
It follows that the amendment of section 2 clause 
(14-A) 
of the Indian Act, by the Finance Act, 1950, 
so as to authorise the levy of tax on income accruing 
in the territory of Rajasthan in the year 1949-50 is 
within the competence of Parliament and therefore 
valid. 
We accordingly allow the appeal, and set aside 
the judgment of the High Court. We make no order 
as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellant : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
Agent for the. respondent : Rajinder Narain. 
THE ST A TE OF 'WEST BENGAL 
v. 
MRS. BELA BANERJEE AND OTHERS. 
rPATANJALI sAsTRI c.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and 
JAGANNADHAD.\S JJ.J 
?'he rv est Ren gal Land Dcvelopn1ent and Planning Act, 194!! 
(West 
Bengal 
Act XX/ of 1948)-Provisions of s. 8-(i) Decla-
ration 
under 
s. 
6-Conclusive 
evidence-I~and-Subject 
1natter 
of decla1·ation needed for a public purposc-(ii) Con1pensation 
of 
land acquired under the Act not to exceed nzarket value of land as on 
Dece1nber 31, 1946-ultra Yires the Constitution and void-Contti· 
tution of India, ai·t. 31(2). 
T'he \\Test Bengal Land l)evelop1nent and Planning Act, 1948, 
passc<l prin1arily 
for 
the 
scttlen1ent 
of immigrants 
\Vho 
had 
1nigrated into 
\Vest Bengal due to communal disturbances in East 
Bengal provi<les for 
the 
acquisition and 
develop1nent of land ior 
public purposes including the purpose aforesaid : 
field, that 
the 
provisions 
of 
s. 
8 
of 
the 
West 
Bengal 
,Act XXI of 1948 
n1aking 
the declaration of the CJ-overnment con· 
elusive as 
to the public nature of the purpose of the acquisition 
and 
the lin1itation of the ainount of compensation so as not to 
exceed the rnarket \'alue of the 
land on December 31, 1946, 
are 
ultra vires the Constitution :;i,nd void : 
• 
• 
• 
' 
• 
S.C.R .. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
559 
(i) inasmuch as 
art. 31(2) 
o[ the 
Constitution made the 
existence 
of a puhlic purpose a necessary condition of acqu1s1tion, 
the existence of such a 
purpose as 
a fact 
must be established 
objectively ; 
(ii) that in vie\v of the {act that the icnpugned Act is a perma~ 
ncnt cnact1nent an<l 
lands may be acquired under it many years 
after it catne into force, 
the fixing of the 1narkct value on Dcce1n-
ber 31, 1946, 
as 
the 
ceiling on compensation without reference to 
the value of the land at the time of acquisition, is arbitrary and 
cannot be regarded as due co1npliance in "letter and spirit \Vith the 
requirements of art. 31(2) : 
(iii) the Act is not saved by art. 31(5) from the operation 
of r,rt. 31 (2) as it was not certified by the President as proYi<led 
for by rirt. 31(6). 
Ile/d, further, 
that while 
entry 
No. 42 • of List J[J of the 
SeYcnth 
Schedule 
confers 
on .the 
legislature 
the 
discretionary 
po\ver of laying do\vn 
the 
principles 
\vhich 
should goYern the 
det~nnination of the a1nount to be giYen to the owner of the pro.-
perty 
appropriated, 
art. 31(2) 
requires 
that 
such 
principles 
n1ust ensure that what is detern1ined as payable n1ust be "con1pen-
sation", that is, a just 
equivalent of \vhat the owner has been 
deprived of. \\Thcther such principles .take 
into account all the 
ele1nents 
\Vhich make up the true 
value of the property appro-
priated and exclude matters which are to be neglected is oi. justici-
ahle issue to be a<lju<licatcd by the Court. 
C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
J umsmcnoN : Civil Appeal 
No. 
123 of 1952. 
Appeal against the Judgment and Order, dated the 
22nd March, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Calcutta 
(Harries 
C.J. 
and 
Banerjee 
J.) 
m 
Reference No. 2 of 1951 in Civil Rules Nos. 20 and 
21 of 1950. 
1953. December 11. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
PATANJ ALI SASTRI C.J.-This is an appeal from a 
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta 
declaring certain provisions of the West Bengal Land 
Development and 
Planning Act, 1948, 
(hereinafter 
referred to as 
the "impugned Act") 
unconstitutional 
and void. 
The impugned Act was passed on October 1, 
1948, 
primarily for the settlement of immigrants ·who had 
migrated into the 
Province of 
West Bengal due to 
communal 
di,turbances 
m 
East 
Bengal, 
and 
it 
1953 
The State of 
We£t 
B

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