# JADAB SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION . AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 755
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K. C. Das Gupta, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jadab-singh-and-others-v-the-himachal-pradesh-administration-and-another-1894
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Estates, Abolition of--Enactment declared invalid as having
been passed by State Legislature .not duly constituted-Validating
Act passed by Parliament-Competence-Constitutional validity of
the Abolition Act-Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed
Estates and Land Reforms Act, I953 (Himachal IS oj.I954), ss. II,
.I5-Himachal Pradesh . Legislative Assembly (Constitution ·and
Proceedings) Validation Act (No; 56 of Igj8), ss. 3, 4-Constitution
of India, Arts. Ig, JI, 3IA, 240, 248, Item No. 97, List!, Seventh
Schedule.
• On October IO, 1958, the Hi!Jlachal Pradesh Abolition of
Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, was declared
invalid by the Supreme Court on the grourid that the .Legislative
Assembly of the New Himachal Pradesh State which passed it
was not duly· constituted and was as such incompetent to pass
the Act (Vide :·Skree Vinod Kumar·v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
[1959] Supp. l S.C.R. l6b). The President by ·Ordina,nce .No. 7
of 1958 validated the constitution and proceedings of tlie said
Assembly. That Ordinance was replaced by the Validating Act
No. 56 of 1958 passed by the Parliament. ·Section 3 of the Act
validated the constitution and proceedings of the Legislative
.Assembly of the Himachal Pradesh State ands: 4 prohibited the
.courts from questioning the validity of any Act or, prpceeding of
the Assembly on the ground of defect in its constitution. The
Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land
Reforms Act was accordingly validated. · The petitioners who
were land-holders challenged the constitutionality of the Ordinance and the validating Act, by petitions under Art. 32 of the
Constitution :
.
Held, that (i) in view of Art. 240 as it stood befor!( its
amendment by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956,
the Parliament was competent to enact the validating Act; \ii) the
provisions of the Abolition Act did not infringe Arts. 19 and 31 of
the Constitution, and
,
(iii) the Abolition Act foll within the protec;tion_o_f Art .. 31A
of the Constitution and it was not open to challenge on. the
ground that it infringed Arts. 19 and 3Iof the Constitutfon.
Shri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, [1959] Supp. r S.C.R.
489, referred to. ·
·
.
.
The reason which precluded the· members of the. Old Himachal Pradesh Assembly from functioning as the Legislature, of
the New Himachal Pradesh State was that a Notification under
s. 74 of the Representation of the People Act, t9:S1,·wa~ ilqt
~
.
. "4pr,il .2~,'
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960)
c960
issued. The Parliament, bi virtue of its residual powers of l_egislation under Art. 248 of the Constitution and item No. 97 of·
Jadab Singh
List I to the Seventh Schedule, was competent to remove the
v.
defect that arose because of the failure to issue the notification,
Himaehal Pradesh and to validate the actual proceedings of the body which funcA dministration
tioned as the Legislature.
. ·
Under Art. 240 of the Constitution, as it stood before it was
amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956,
the Parliament was not debarred from enacting the validating
Act nor did the power of the Parliament to validate the acts an<!
proceedings of the State Legislature come to an end when the
State itself ceased to exist.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petitions Nos. 161 of
1958 and 109 of 1959.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Achhru Ram, D. R. Prem and Ganpat Rai, for the
petitioners (In Petn. No. 161 of 58 and 16, 17, 35, 58,
69, 102, 109/1959).
D. R. Prem, R. Thiagarajan and T. Satyanarayana,
for the petitioners (In Petn. No. 36 of 1959).
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the
respondents (in all the petitions).
1960. April 28.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Shah J.
SHAH, J.-In the First Schedule to the Constitution,
as originally enacted under the heading " Part C
States" were set out the names of ten " C " States.
The Parliament o

## Text

,. .• - r
•
'
,
3 S.C.R. SUPREM'E'COURT REPORTS··
755
JADAB SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION
.
AND ANOTHER
...,.,
.
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA
RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Estates, Abolition of--Enactment declared invalid as having
been passed by State Legislature .not duly constituted-Validating
Act passed by Parliament-Competence-Constitutional validity of
the Abolition Act-Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed
Estates and Land Reforms Act, I953 (Himachal IS oj.I954), ss. II,
.I5-Himachal Pradesh . Legislative Assembly (Constitution ·and
Proceedings) Validation Act (No; 56 of Igj8), ss. 3, 4-Constitution
of India, Arts. Ig, JI, 3IA, 240, 248, Item No. 97, List!, Seventh
Schedule.
• On October IO, 1958, the Hi!Jlachal Pradesh Abolition of
Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, was declared
invalid by the Supreme Court on the grourid that the .Legislative
Assembly of the New Himachal Pradesh State which passed it
was not duly· constituted and was as such incompetent to pass
the Act (Vide :·Skree Vinod Kumar·v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
[1959] Supp. l S.C.R. l6b). The President by ·Ordina,nce .No. 7
of 1958 validated the constitution and proceedings of tlie said
Assembly. That Ordinance was replaced by the Validating Act
No. 56 of 1958 passed by the Parliament. ·Section 3 of the Act
validated the constitution and proceedings of the Legislative
.Assembly of the Himachal Pradesh State ands: 4 prohibited the
.courts from questioning the validity of any Act or, prpceeding of
the Assembly on the ground of defect in its constitution. The
Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land
Reforms Act was accordingly validated. · The petitioners who
were land-holders challenged the constitutionality of the Ordinance and the validating Act, by petitions under Art. 32 of the
Constitution :
.
Held, that (i) in view of Art. 240 as it stood befor!( its
amendment by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956,
the Parliament was competent to enact the validating Act; \ii) the
provisions of the Abolition Act did not infringe Arts. 19 and 31 of
the Constitution, and
,
(iii) the Abolition Act foll within the protec;tion_o_f Art .. 31A
of the Constitution and it was not open to challenge on. the
ground that it infringed Arts. 19 and 3Iof the Constitutfon.
Shri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, [1959] Supp. r S.C.R.
489, referred to. ·
·
.
.
The reason which precluded the· members of the. Old Himachal Pradesh Assembly from functioning as the Legislature, of
the New Himachal Pradesh State was that a Notification under
s. 74 of the Representation of the People Act, t9:S1,·wa~ ilqt
~
.
. "4pr,il .2~,'
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960)
c960
issued. The Parliament, bi virtue of its residual powers of l_egislation under Art. 248 of the Constitution and item No. 97 of·
Jadab Singh
List I to the Seventh Schedule, was competent to remove the
v.
defect that arose because of the failure to issue the notification,
Himaehal Pradesh and to validate the actual proceedings of the body which funcA dministration
tioned as the Legislature.
. ·
Under Art. 240 of the Constitution, as it stood before it was
amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956,
the Parliament was not debarred from enacting the validating
Act nor did the power of the Parliament to validate the acts an<!
proceedings of the State Legislature come to an end when the
State itself ceased to exist.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petitions Nos. 161 of
1958 and 109 of 1959.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Achhru Ram, D. R. Prem and Ganpat Rai, for the
petitioners (In Petn. No. 161 of 58 and 16, 17, 35, 58,
69, 102, 109/1959).
D. R. Prem, R. Thiagarajan and T. Satyanarayana,
for the petitioners (In Petn. No. 36 of 1959).
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the
respondents (in all the petitions).
1960. April 28.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Shah J.
SHAH, J.-In the First Schedule to the Constitution,
as originally enacted under the heading " Part C
States" were set out the names of ten " C " States.
The Parliament of India enacted The Government of
Part C States Act, 49 of 1951, providing for the constitution of Legislative Assemblies, Councils of Ministers
and Councils of Advisers for Part C States. Under s. 4
of the Act, the President was authorised to delimit by
order the constituencies into which each Part C State
was to be divided and the areas of the constituencies,
t.he number of seats allocated to' each such constituency and the number of seats reserved for scheduled
castes and tribes. In exercise of the powers conferred
by s. 4 of the Act, the President made an order determining the constituencies into which the State of
Himachal Pradesh was to be divided. In 1952, elections were held to the Himachal Pradesh Assembly
and 36 members were elected in the different constituencies. In the Legislative Assembly of the State,
...
•
'
.

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
759
~hall be deemed to have been duly chosen as the
Speaker and the Deputy Speaker respectively;
Jadab Singh
and accordinglyv.
(1) any Bill passed by the new Legislative Assem- Himachal Pradesh
bly. (whether the Bill was introduced in the new
Administration
Legislative Assembly or was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh functioning
immediately before the 1st day of July, 1954) and
assented to by the President shall be deemed to have
been validly enacted and to have the force of law;
(2) any grant made, resolution passed or adopted,
proceeding taken or any other thing done by or before
the new Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to have
been made, passed, adopted, taken or done in accordance with law."
Section 4:
"No court shall question any Act passed, or any
grant, resolution, proceeding or thing made, passed,
adopted, taken or done by or before the new Legislative Assembly merely on the ground that the new
Legislative Assembly had not been duly constituted
or on the ground that a, person who was not entitled
so to do presided over, sat or voted or otherwise took
part in the proceedings of the new Legislative
Assembly."
By these nine ·petitions, the constitutional validity
of Ordinance No. 7 of 1958 and Act No. 56 of 1958 is
challenged and the petitioners pray for writs of
mandamus or other writs or directions restraining the
Himachal Pradesh Administration and the Union of
India from giving effect to Ordinance No. 7 of 1958
and Act No. 56of1958 and to the Abolition Act or
" acting in any manner under or on the basis of that
Act".
Counsel for the petitioners contends, (1) that the
persons summoned by the Lieutenant-Governor by
his notification dated July 7, 1954, could not constitute a Legislature of the new State as those persons
were not elected or nominated in the manner prescribed by Art. 240 of the Constitution; and the
Parliament could not by law validate acts and
proceedings of that body which had no authority to
legislate, (2) the Parliament in enacting the Validating ·
Shah j.
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
r960
Act had no authority retrospectively to form a Legislative Assembly in violation of the terms of Art. 240
Jadab Singh
v.
of the Constitution especially when the new State of
Himo,hal P•adesh Himachal Pradesh which was formed under Act 32 of
Admin;si.ation 1954 had ceased to exist at the date when the AboliShah ].
tion Act was enacted, and (3) even if the Validating
Act is not open to challenge, the Abolition Act contravened Art. 31 of the Constitution and is therefore
void as infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19 and Art. 31 of the Constitution.
In our view, there is no substance in any of the contentions raised.
By Art. 240(1) of the Constitution, before it was
amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment)
Act, 1956, it was provided:
"240. (1) Parliament may by law create or continue
for any State specified in Part C of the First Schedule
and administered through a Chief Commissioner or
Lieutenant-Governor-
( a) a body, whether nominated, elected or partly
nominated or elected, to function as a Legislature for
the State; or
(b) a Council of Advisers or Ministers, or both with
such constitution, powers and functions in each case,
as may be specified in the law."
By the Article as it stood before its· amendment, the
Parliament was competent by law to create or continue for any State specified in Part C of the First
Schedule a body to function as a Legislature. Under
that Article, the Legislature was to consist of persons
nominated or elected, or partly elected and partly
nominated, and there is no dispute that the Legislature consisting of members validly elected from the
various constituencies functioned for the old State of
Himachal Pradesh. Those 36 members of the old
Himachal Pradesh Assembly having been under Act 49
of 1951 duly elected to the Assembly of that State, by
virtue of s. 15(1) of Act 32 of 1954 each member was
to be deemed to have been duly elected by the corresponding constituency of the Legislature of the new
State, and the only reason why those members could
not function as a Legislature of the new State was that
the notification under s. 74 of the Representation of
.\ ---
J
-' \ -
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
761
the People Act was not published. The legislative
1960
acts of tha.t Assembly were undoubtedly unauthorised,
.
.
but it was competent to the Parliament by legislation
fadab Singh
to remove the bar which arose because of the failure Himacha~·P,adesh
to issue the notification and to validate the acts done
Administration
by the Legislature.
Article 240 did not provide that the Legislative
Assembly could not function unless the members thereof were expressly elected or were nominated to the
. Legislature of a Part C State. By Art. 248, the Parliament has the residuary power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent
List or the State List, and legislation seeking to remove
the disability of members of a Legislative Assembly of
a Part 0 State arising because of the failure to issue a
notification under s. 74 of the Representation of the
People Act, is not covered by any item falling in the
Concurrent List or in the State List. By item No. !:17
in List I to the Seventh Schedule, the Union Parliament is competent to make any other law not
enumerated in Lists II and III. The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the Act is therefore
not open to challenge.
The legislative competence of the Legislative
Assembly of the New Himachal State Assembly to
enact the Abolition Act in 1954 cannot be and is not
denied. There is no absolute bar against the authority of the Parliament to enact legislation which takes
away vested rights provided the legislation falls within
any of the legislative lists within the competence of
the Parliament and it does not infringe any of the
fundamental rights of the citizens. Again, no constitutional provision is violated by the enactment of Act
56 of 1958.
"\Ve are also unable to hold that the
authority of Parliament to validate the acts and
proceedings of the Assembly summoned by the
Lieutenant-Governor in 1954 was exhausted when
Art. 240 as it originally stood was amended by the
Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, and
Part 0 State of Hiinachal Pradesh ceased to exist;
When the Validating Act was enacted, the Himachal
Pradesh Part 0 'State had ceased to exist but on that
account, the authority of the' Parliament tO validate
Shah j.
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
rg6o
the proceedings of the body of persons which purportJadab Singh
ed to function as the Legislative Assembly under Act
v.
32 of 1954 was not extinguished.
Himachal Pradesh
Did the Abolition Act infringe the fundamental
Administration rights of the petitioners under Art. 19 or Art. 31 of
Shah ./.
the Constitution ? Bys. 11, the tenants were invested
with the right to acquire the interests of the landowners in the lands held by them. It was provided
that notwithstanding any law, custom or contract to
the contrary, any tenant other than a sub-tenant shall,
on application made to the compensation officer at
any time after the commencement of the Act, be
entitled to acquire, on paymnet of compensation, the
right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land
held by him subject to certain terms and conditions
set out therein. Section 14 permitted acquisition by
the tenants of the rights of the land-owners in a portion of the lands of the tenancy in certain specified
circumstances. Section 15 sanctioned the acquisition
by the State Government of the rights of the landowners by notification in the gazette declaring that as
from such date and in respect of such area as may be
specified in the notification, the right, title and interest
of the land-owner in the lands of any tenancy held
under him by a tenant shall stand transferred to and
vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances created in such lands by the land-owner. By
s. 16, the method of computation of the compensation
payable for acquisition of the right, title and interest of
the land-owners under s. 15 is prescribed. Bys. 27, it
was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the foregoing sections of that
chapter, the land-owner who held land, the annual land
revenue of which exceeded Rs. 125 per year, the
right, title and interest of such owner in such land
shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested
in the State Government free of all encumbrances.
Sub-s. (3) of s. 27 laid down that the land-owner
whose right
was acquired under sub-s. 1 by the
State Government shall be entitled to receive compensation to be determined by the compensation
officer having regard to ss. 17 and 18 of the Act, in
accordance with the provisions of Schedule II; but in
r
\ r
-
-
.__
--"'
----
3 S.0.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
763
the case of such occupancy tenant who was liable to
pay rent in terms of land revenue or the multiple of
land revenue, the compensation payable to his landfadab Singh
owner shall be computed in accordance with Sche- Himacha~·Pradesh
dule I. Provision was also made by the Act for State Adminis11ation
management of lands in certain eventualities. Article 31 of the Constitution a.s amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, provides, inter
alia, that a law for compulsory acquisition of property
for public purposes shall not be called in question in
any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate, and by Art. 31-A
which was substituted by the Constitution (Fourth
Amendment) Act, 1955, for the original Article with
retrospective effect, it is provided that notwithstanding
anything contained in Art. 13, no law providing for
(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any
rights therein or the extinguishment or modification
of any such rights ...... shall be deemed to have become
void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes
away or abridges any of the fundamental rights conferred by Art. 14, 19 or 31; provided that where such
law is made by the Legislature of a S~ate, the provisions of the Article shall not apply thereto unless the
law, having been reserved for the consideration of the
President, has received his assent. The Abolition Act
passed by the State Assembly was reserved for consideration of the President and it received bis assent.
The impugned Act contains provisions transferring the
interest of the land-owners to the tenants in lands and
for acquisition by the State of the property of the
land-owners on payment of compensation under the
Schedule provided in that behalf. This court has held
in Sri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay (1) that a statute
the object of which is to bring about _agrarian reform
by transferring the
interes~ of the land-owners to
tenants falls within the class of statutes contemplated
by Art. 31-A(a) and is protected from the attack that
it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14,
19 and 31 of the Constitution. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners conceded, and in our judgment
rightly, that the principle of that case -governed this
, (I) [1959) Supp. I S.C.R. 489.
Shah ].
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
1960
case and the validity of s. 11 could not in view of
Art. 31-A be challenged. The validity of the proviJadab Singh
sions for acquisition by the State of the lands of the
Himach;i Prnd"h land-owners for compensation determinable in accordAdm;nJStration ance with the provisions of Sch. II is also not liable
Shah ].
1960
April 29.
to be challenged under Art. 31 read with Art. 31-A.
In that view of the case, all these petitions must
fail and they are ordered to be dismissed with costs.
Petitions dismissed.
A. S. T. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI
v.
M/S. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS (PRIVATE) LTD.
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR,
K. SuBBA RAO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles-Stage carriage permits, variation of-] urisdiction of Regional Transport Officer-State Government's power of
revision-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of I939l. as amended by the
Madras Act, 2oof I948, ss. 44A, 64A.
The question for decision in this appeal was whether the
Regional Transport Officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
as amended by the Madras State Legislature, had the power to
vary the terms of a stage carriage permit granted under that Act.
The appellant, holder of a stage carriage permit, applied on July
t9, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer for a variation of the
route specified in his permit. The Regional Officer after hearing
objections rejected the application. The appellant applied to the
State Government for revision of the order under s. 64A of the Act
and the Government after hearing objections set aside the order of
the Regional Transport Officer and granted variation of the permit
as sought for.
Against this order the respondent moved the
Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The
Single Judge who heard the matter, following a decision of a
Division Bench of that Court, held that the Regional Transport
Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application and the State Government for that very reason could have
no power in revision to grant the same, and set aside the order of
the Madras Government :
Held (per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Sarkar and Shah, JJ.). Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, introduced into the Act by
the Madras Legislature, although couched in wide language,
does not confer on the State Government any original jurisdiction
or authorise it to pass in revision an order which the authority,
.whose order it seeks to revise, has no jurisdiction to pass. While
undoubtedly it can set aside an order of ap auwority or officer
-
--