THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SUBODH GOPALBOSE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 17-12-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
• 
.. 
" 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
587 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
f}. 
SUBODH GOPAL BOSE AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SAsTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and 
JAGANNADHADAS JJ.j 
Constitution 
of India, arts. 19 (J) (f) 
& 31-Scope of-
Correlation between art. 19 (1) (!) and art. 31-Clauses (J) and (2) 
of art. 31, whether 
mutually 
exclusivc-"Deprivation"-"Acqui-
sition"-f'Taking 
possession 
of"-Meanings 
of-Bengal 
!And 
Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950 (West Bengal 
Act VII of 1950), s. 7-Whether 
ultra 
vires ·art. 19 (1) (/) 
and art. 31. 
The first respondent B purchased a Touzi in 24-Parganas Col-
lectorate 
at a 
revenue 
sale held on 9th January, 1942. 
As such 
purchaser 
he 
acquired 
under 
s. 37 
of 
the 
Bengal Revenue 
, Sales Act, 
18j9, 
the right "t:v avoid and 
annul all 
under~tenures 
and forthwith to eject all under-tenants" 
with 
certain 
exceptions 
which are not material here. 
In exercise 
of that 
right he gave 
notices of ejectment and brought a suit in 1946 to evict certain 
under-tenants 
including 
the 
second 
respondent 
herein 
and to 
recover possession of the lands. The suit was decreed against the 
second respondent 
who preferred an appeal to the District Judge, 
24-Parganas, 
contending that his under-tenure came within one of 
the 
exceptions 
referred to 
in 
s. 
37. 
When 
the 
appeal was 
pending, the Bill which was later passed as the West Bengal 
Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950, .was introduced 
in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on 23rd March, 1950. 
It 
would 
appear, 
according to the "statement of objects 
and 
reasons" annexed to the Bill, that great hardship was being caused 
to a large section of the people by the application of s. 37 of the 
Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 
1859, in the urban areas and 
particularly 
in 
Calcutta 
and its 
suburbs 
where 
"the 
present 
phenomenal 
increase 
in land 
values has supplied the necessary 
incentive 
to speculative 
purchasers 
in exploiting 
this 
provision 
(section 37) of the law for unwarranted large scale eviction" and 
it was, therefore, considered necessary to enlarge the scope of pro-
tection 
already 
given 
by the section to 
certain 
categories 
of 
tenants with due safeguards for the security of Government 
revenue. 
The Bill was eventually passed as 
the amending Act 
and it came into force on 
15th March, 1950. It substituted 
by 
s. 4 the new s. 37 in place of the original s. 37 and it 
provided 
by s. 
7 that 
all 
pending suits, appeals •nd other 
proceedings which had not already resulted in delivery of posses-
sion, shall abate. 
Thereupon B contending that s. 7 was void 
1953 
Dec.17. 
!S53 
The State of 
West Bengal 
v. 
SuOodft Goj)al 
Bose awl Others. 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
as abridging his fundamental rights under art. 19(1)(£) and art. 31 
inoved 
the 
High Court under art. 228 to withdraw the pending 
appeal and 
to detern1ine 
the 
constitutional issue raised by him. 
The appeal was accordingly withdrawn and the case was heard by 
~freYor Harries 
C.J. and Banerjee J. who, by separate but con· 
curring 
Judg111ents, 
declared ·S. 
7 unconstitutional 
and 
void. 
~fhey hel<l that B's right to annul under-tenures an<l evict 
under-
tenants being a vested right acquired by him 
under- his 
purchase 
before 
s. 37 
was 
an1en<led, 
the 
retrospective 
depri\'ation 
of 
that right 
by s. 
7 of 
the ainending 
Act without 
any abate-
n1ent 
of the 
price paid by 
him at the revenue sale was an 
infringement of his fundamental 
right under art. 19 (l)(f) to hold 
property with all the rights acquired under his purchase, and as 
such depriYation 
\Vas 
not a reasonable 
restriction on the exercise 
of his 
vested right, 
s. 
7 was not saved by cl. ( 5) 
of that 
article and \Vas void. The State of \\Test 
Bengal 
preferred the 
present appeal to the Supren1e Court : 
Held, per PATANJALI SAsm1 C.J.-Artick 19 (!) (£) 
has no 
application 
to this 
case. 1"he vvord "hold" in the article 
means 
O\VIl. rfhe said sub-clause (£) gives the citizen of India the abstract 
right to acquire, O\Vn and dispose of property. This article does not 
deal with 
the 
concrete rights of the citizens of India in respect 
of the property so acquired and o\vned by him. 
These 
concrete 
rights are dealt with in art. 31 of the Constitution. 
Under the scherne of the 
Constitution 
all those 
broad and 
basic freedo1ns inherent in the status of a 

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