LexUDAI RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D It G UDAI RAM SHARMA ANI) OTHERS ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA &"ID OTHERS February 1, 1968 (K. N. WANCHOO, CJ., R. S. BACRAWAT, G. K. MITTER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J . Land Acquisition (Amendment and Vclidation) Act, 13 of 19~7, ss. 2, 3, 4, 5-Validity of Act-Validation of past invalid reports under s. 5-A of Lafrd Acquisition Act 1894 and declarations under s. 6 without removal of lacuna in substantive law wheth£r an encroachntent on judicial power by the legislature-Amendment whether violates Arts. 14 and 31 (2) of Constitution of India 1950. In the Stal;, of Madhya Pradesh v. V. P. Sharma, [1966) 3 S.C.R. 557 is Court held that once a declaration under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was made the notification under s. 4(1) of the Act was exhaust- ed and there could be no 'Successive notifications under s. 6 with resocct to land in a locality specified in one notification under s. 4(1). Relying on the above judgment the present writ petitions were filed in order to chal- lenie successive notifications under s. 6 following a single notification under s. 4(1) in respect of land belonging to them. Meanwhile in order to meet the situation created by the judgment in V, P. Sharma' s case the President of India promulgated the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance (I of 1967). The Ordinance .was later followed by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act 1967. Section 2 of this Act purported to amend s. 5-A of the principal Act by allowing the making of more than one report in .respect of land which had been notified under s. 4(1). Section 3 purported to amends. 6 of the principal Act' .hY emPQ__wering different declarations to be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the samei notification under s. 4(1) irrespective of whether one report or different reports had been made under s. 5-A sub-s. (2). Section 4 of the Act purported to validate all acquisitions of land made or purporting to have been made under the principal Act before the commencement of the ordinance namely January 20, 1967, notwithstanding that more than one declaration under s. 6 had been made in pursuance of the same notification under s. 4(1), and not- withstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court to the contrary. The Amending Act also laid down time limits for declarations under s. 6 of the principal Act after the notification under s. 4( 1) had been issued in respect of notifications made after January 20, 1967 the ·time limit was three years; in respect' of notification made before that date the time limit was to be two years after that date. Provision was also made for pay· ment of interest on compensation due to persons in respect of whose land declarations under s. 6 had been delayed beyond a specified period; no interest was however, to be paid to those to whom compensation h~d already been paid. The petitioners by leave of Co'urt amended their petitions to attack the validity of t~e aforesai~ Validating Act pn the follo~ing m.ain grounds : ( 1) By seeking to validate past transactions of a kind which had been H declared invalid by this Court without retrospectively changing the subs-. tantive law. under which the past tr.:nsactions had been effected the legisla- ture Was encroaching over the domain of the judicial power vested by tho Constitution in the judiciary exclu.sively; (ii) The Validating Act did not L4Sup. C.1./68-4 42 SUPREME COURT lll!POllTS (1968] 3 s.c.R. revive the notification under s. 4 which had become exhausted after the A first declaration under s. 6 and no acquisition following thereafter could be made without a fresh notification under s. 4; (iii) The Validating Act violated Art. 31(2) of the Constitution inasmuch as it purported to authorise acqµisitions without fresh notifications under 5. 4 thereby allow· ing compensation to be paid on the basis of the said notification uruler s. 4 without allowing for increase in the value of land thereafter; (iv) The Validating Act violated Art. 14 of the Constitution in various ways. B HELD: Per Wanchoo C.J., Bachawat & Mitter, JJ.-(i) The American doctrine of well defined separation of legislative and judicial powen has no application to India and it cannot be said that an Indian Statute ,which seeks to validate invalid actions' is bad if the invalidify has already been pronounced upon by a court of law. A. K. Gopala11 v. Sir.le, [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.