VISWESHWAR RAO versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 02-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952J 
VISWESHW AR RAO 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(AND OTHER CASES) 
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Madhya 
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights 
(Estates, 
Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act (l of 1951)-Law for abolition of 
proprietary estates and 
tenures-Compensation 
inadequate-/uris-
diction of Court to inquire into validity of Act-Right of eminenr 
tiomain--Necessity of provision for paynlent of compensation and 
public purpose-Spirit of Constitution-Delegation of legislative 
potuers-Fraud on the Constitution-Passing of Bills-Certificate 
of Speaker that Bill was passed-Conclusiveness-Omission to note 
on record that Bill was passed-Effect-Reserving law for astent 
of 
President~Governor's signature to Bill, whether 
necessary--
"Law", "Legislature", "Public purpose" f'eanings of-Compulsory 
Requisition of 1nalguzari villages, and property set apart as private 
property of ~"ler under covenant of merger-Legalit}'-Constitution 
of India, 
1950-Constitution 
(First Amendment) 
Act, 1951-
Arts. 31, 31-A, 31-B, 362, 363. 
Held by the Full Court (PATANJALI SASTRI C. J., MAHAJAN, 
MoKHERJEA, 
DAs 
and 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR 
JJ.)-The 
Madhya. Pradesh 
Abolition of 
Proprietory 
Rights (Estates, 
Mahals, Alienated Lands), Act (I of 1951) is valid in its entiret" 
In view of the provisions contained in 
arts. 
31(4), 31-A 
an.1 
31-B of the Constitution the court has no jurisdiction to enquire 
into an objection to the validity of the Act ·on the ground that 
it drxs not provide for adequate compensation. 
The Act does. 
not involve any de:legation of legislative powers and the provi-
sions relating to compensation therein are not a fraud on 
the 
Constitution. 
Held also, that the certificate of the Speaker on the original 
Bill when it was submitted to the President for his assent, 
th~t 
the Bill was passed by the House was conclusive proof that the 
Bill was passed, and the mere fact that there was nothing on the 
record of the proceedings to show that the motion that 
the Bill 
be passed was voted upon and carri,,d, as required by rule 20( l) 
of the Rules of Procedure, could not invalidate the Act. 
Per 
PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J.-In any case, the omission to put the 
motion formally to the House, even if true, \Vas, in the circun1-
stances no more thap_ a mere irregularity of procedure as it was 
not disputed 
that the overwhelming majority of the members 
• 
• 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1021 
present 
were in favour of carrying the motion and no dissentient 
voice was actually raised. 
Held further, (i) that though art. 31(3) speaks of a "law" 
being reserved for 
the consideration of 
the 
President; 
the 
Constitution does not contemplate that before submitting a Bill 
which has been passed by a Legislative Assembly for the assent 
of the President, the Governor should give his assent to it; 
(ii) that the President can perform both the duties entrusted 
to him under art. 200 and art. 31(3) and (4) at one and the same 
time; he need not give his assent twice, once to make the Bill a 
law under art. 200 and then give his assent oncei more in order to 
make the law effective against art. 31 (2); the 
word 
"Legislature" 
used in this connection in art. 31 ( 4) means the House or Houses 
of Legislature and does not include the Governor; 
(iii) that though malguzari villages are not included in the 
expression "estate" as defined in art. 31-A, art. 31-B (which is 
not merely illustrative of art. 31-A, but an independent provision) 
validated the Act even in respect of rnalguzari villages, and 
since art. 
31 ( 4) 
is not limited to "estates" its provisions also 
saved the law in its entirety; 
(iv) Article 362 does not prohibit the acquisition of pro-
perties set apart as private properties of a Ruler by a covenant 
of merger. 
Per MAHAJAN and DAs 
JJ.-In any event, the 
jurisdiction 
of the Court to decide disputes which arise out of a covenant of 
merger was barred by art. 363. 
PETITIONS under article 32 of the Constitution of 
Indi;i for enforcement of fundamental rights. 
(Peti-
tions Nos. 166, 228, 230, 237, 245, 246, 257, 
268, 
280 
to 285, 287 to 289, 317, 318 and 487 
of 1951). 
The 
facts which gave rise to these petitions and the argu-
ments of counsel are stated in the judgment. 
B. Somayya (V. N. Swami, with him) 
for 
the 
petitioner in Petition No. 166 of 1951. 
N. S. 
Bindra 
(P. S. Safeer, 

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