# SUPH,EME COURT REPORTS [1 !!_61] --THE 8'l'A'l'E OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS v. NABA KUMAR 8EAL

- **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 368
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Case number:** Civil Rule No. 1409 of 1951
- **Bench:** B. l''. Sr~HA, J. L.- Kapur, J?. B. Oajendragadkah, K. ·sunn, 1- RAo, K. N. WANCHoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/suph-eme-court-reports-1-61-the-8-l-a-l-e-of-west-bengal-and-others-v-naba-2169
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Acq11isitio11 of lmul-Scttlcment of immigrants- Dcvelupmcnt
schc11ic-lj necessary in. cases of acquisition u11dt.:~.c1ncrgcncy--
Absc11cc of clc11elopmc11t scheme-If infringes ftmdamciital rights---
W est Bengal Devclupmcnt and Planning Act, I948 (21 of I948),
s. 7-Consljt11tion of India, Arts._r4, r9(I)(j), .11(2).
By a notification-under s. 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, r948, the Government declared that
certain plots of land belonging to the respondent were needed for
. the settlement of immigrants from East Pakistan and for improving living conditions in the locality. Thereafter a second notification was issued by the Govern.men! under s. 6 read with s. 7 of
the Act declaring that the,p1ots covered by the previous notification \Vere_ needed for 'the same yurpose as stated therein.
When the Government started to erect structures on the land
thus acquired the respondent moved the High Court under
Art. 22(i of the Constituti9n challenging the vires of the Act
and impugning the legality/of the proceedings taken under the
Act.
The petition \vas heard by a judge of the High ·Court sitting sing\y who negatived all the contentions of the petitioner
and discharged the rule. On appeal by the respondent under
the Lette,rs Patent, a Division Bench of the High Court held
that the Act- did not inf(inge the provisions of Arts. r9(1)(!) and.
:; 1(2) of the Constitution. The ·High Court further held .that
it was incumbent on the State Government tq frame -a (levelopment scheme after possession of the land had been taken even
though the Government was entitled to deal with the land on
an pmergencY. basis under s. 7 of _the Act, which runs thus:---
·
11 In cases of urgency, if in· respect of 3.ny not'ific<l area
the State Government is satisfied that the preparation ol a·
uevelopmenl scheme is likely to be delayed, the State Govern1nent may, at any time·, n1ake a declaration under~· 6, jn rcs_pect "of sudi notified area or ahy part thereof though n'o dc_velopmcnt scheme has either been prepared or sanctioned under
s. 5 ".
.
The High Cour.t allbweg th_c respondent's appeal and cJircc_lc<l a \\'fit of mandamus to issue to the Govcrnznent re~iring
them to proceed' to frame a development scbeme in tqins of
the Act. 6n appeal uy the State of West Bengal on a certificate granted by the High Court,
1 S.C.R. SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
369
Held, that the High Court was in error in issuing the
r960
mandamus against the appellants.
Section 7 of the Act completely dispensed with the statutory nece<Sity of preparing a
The State of
scheme of clevelop1nent as envisaged in s. 5 of the Act in cases
J'Vest Bengal
where the Government had taken the decision that it was
&- Others
necessary to proceed further \vith the acquisition proceedings
v.
\Vithout waiting for a developmen.t sche1ne.
i.Vaba Kumar Seal
No discrimination was implicit in the provisions of s. 7 of
the Act and no fundamental right of the appellant was infringed either unrler Art. q or Arts. r9(r)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 212/55.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated July
7, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from
Original Order No. 157 of 1952, arising out of the
,Judgment and Decree dated March 28, 1952, of t.he
said High Court in Civil Rule No. 1409 of 1951.
B. Sen and P. K. Bose for the appellants.
P. K. Ghosh for the respondent.
S. C. Mazumdar for the Intervener (Gopalpur Land
Development Society, Ltd.).
1960. August 29.
The .Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SINHA C. J.-The only substantial question that
Sinha c. 1.
arises for determination in this appeal, on a certificate
granted by the Calcutta High Court under Art. 133
(l)(c) of the Constitution, is whether the Government
of West .Bengal was bound to frame a development
scheme under the provisions of the West Bengal Land
Development and Planning Act, 21of1948, which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, when it exercised
its power of e

## Text

August 29.
368
SUPH,EME COURT REPORTS
[1 !!_61]
--THE 8'l'A'l'E OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
v.
NABA KUMAR 8EAL.
(B. l''. Sr~HA, C. J., J. L.- KAPUR,
:J?. B. OAJENDRAGADKAH, K. ·sunn,-1- RAo
and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.)
Acq11isitio11 of lmul-Scttlcment of immigrants- Dcvelupmcnt
schc11ic-lj necessary in. cases of acquisition u11dt.:~.c1ncrgcncy--
Absc11cc of clc11elopmc11t scheme-If infringes ftmdamciital rights---
W est Bengal Devclupmcnt and Planning Act, I948 (21 of I948),
s. 7-Consljt11tion of India, Arts._r4, r9(I)(j), .11(2).
By a notification-under s. 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, r948, the Government declared that
certain plots of land belonging to the respondent were needed for
. the settlement of immigrants from East Pakistan and for improving living conditions in the locality. Thereafter a second notification was issued by the Govern.men! under s. 6 read with s. 7 of
the Act declaring that the,p1ots covered by the previous notification \Vere_ needed for 'the same yurpose as stated therein.
When the Government started to erect structures on the land
thus acquired the respondent moved the High Court under
Art. 22(i of the Constituti9n challenging the vires of the Act
and impugning the legality/of the proceedings taken under the
Act.
The petition \vas heard by a judge of the High ·Court sitting sing\y who negatived all the contentions of the petitioner
and discharged the rule. On appeal by the respondent under
the Lette,rs Patent, a Division Bench of the High Court held
that the Act- did not inf(inge the provisions of Arts. r9(1)(!) and.
:; 1(2) of the Constitution. The ·High Court further held .that
it was incumbent on the State Government tq frame -a (levelopment scheme after possession of the land had been taken even
though the Government was entitled to deal with the land on
an pmergencY. basis under s. 7 of _the Act, which runs thus:---
·
11 In cases of urgency, if in· respect of 3.ny not'ific<l area
the State Government is satisfied that the preparation ol a·
uevelopmenl scheme is likely to be delayed, the State Govern1nent may, at any time·, n1ake a declaration under~· 6, jn rcs_pect "of sudi notified area or ahy part thereof though n'o dc_velopmcnt scheme has either been prepared or sanctioned under
s. 5 ".
.
The High Cour.t allbweg th_c respondent's appeal and cJircc_lc<l a \\'fit of mandamus to issue to the Govcrnznent re~iring
them to proceed' to frame a development scbeme in tqins of
the Act. 6n appeal uy the State of West Bengal on a certificate granted by the High Court,
1 S.C.R. SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
369
Held, that the High Court was in error in issuing the
r960
mandamus against the appellants.
Section 7 of the Act completely dispensed with the statutory nece<Sity of preparing a
The State of
scheme of clevelop1nent as envisaged in s. 5 of the Act in cases
J'Vest Bengal
where the Government had taken the decision that it was
&- Others
necessary to proceed further \vith the acquisition proceedings
v.
\Vithout waiting for a developmen.t sche1ne.
i.Vaba Kumar Seal
No discrimination was implicit in the provisions of s. 7 of
the Act and no fundamental right of the appellant was infringed either unrler Art. q or Arts. r9(r)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 212/55.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated July
7, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from
Original Order No. 157 of 1952, arising out of the
,Judgment and Decree dated March 28, 1952, of t.he
said High Court in Civil Rule No. 1409 of 1951.
B. Sen and P. K. Bose for the appellants.
P. K. Ghosh for the respondent.
S. C. Mazumdar for the Intervener (Gopalpur Land
Development Society, Ltd.).
1960. August 29.
The .Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SINHA C. J.-The only substantial question that
Sinha c. 1.
arises for determination in this appeal, on a certificate
granted by the Calcutta High Court under Art. 133
(l)(c) of the Constitution, is whether the Government
of West .Bengal was bound to frame a development
scheme under the provisions of the West Bengal Land
Development and Planning Act, 21of1948, which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, when it exercised
its power of emergency under s. 7 of the Act.
The facts of this case lie within a very narrow compass and are as follows : The respondent was the
owner of about 18 bighas of land in a certain village
in the distric~ of 24 Pargauas. By a notification dated
January 6,
1950, and published in the Calcutta
Gazette dated January 12, 1950, under s. 4 of the Act,
the Government declared that the cadastral survey
370
SUPHEME COURT REPORTS
[ l!HH]
1960
plots, i:;a.rticulars whereof were given in the notification, were likely to be
n~ecled for the settlemt•nt of
1;;;}~:~g~ immigrants and for crc·n.tion of better living conditions
.s. Othm
in the locality.
Thereafter a notification was issued
v.
under s. 6 read with s. 7 of tho Act and published in
Naba Ku•••r Seal tho Calcutta Gazette dated April 27, 1950, declaring
that the plots coverod by the notification under s. 4
Si11ha C. ].
"
'd
d d r
h
a1ore8a1 were nee e ior t e very same purposes as
stated in thl'I notific11tion under s. 4. On or about
December 16, 1950, pcssessiun of those plots, except
three, was taken by the Government. When tho
Government started to erect certain structures on the
land thus acquired and stored building materials
nearabout, t.be respondent moved the High Court
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the
vires of the Act and impugning the legality of the proceedings taken under the Act. The matter was heard
by H. K. Bose, J., sitting singly.
Before him the
grounds urged in support of the petition were that the
relea8e of the three plots from the acquisition proceedings rendered the entire procoodings bad in law; that
there was nu nrgenJy for the Government to take
steps under s. 7 of the Act, and for issuing tho notifi.
cation under s. 6; and that the provisions of the Act
infringed the fundamental rights of the respondent,
pecit.ioner in the High Court, enshrined in Art. 19(1)(f)
of the Constitution. The learned Judge, by his judgment dated March 28, 1952, negatived all those contentions and discharged the rule issued by the High
Court on tlw Government of West Bengal and others
under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The
respondent preferred an appeal under the
Letters Patent. The appeal was heard by a Division
Bench consisting of G. N. Das and Debabrata. ~fooker
jee, JJ. By their judgment d'ited July 7, 1953, it was
held that the Act did not infringe the provisions of
Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution and that therefore it
became unnecessary to express any opinion
with
respect to the provisions of Art. Hl(l)(f). But the
Bench also examined the provisions of the Act in the
light of Art. 19(l)(f; of the Constitution and came to
the conclusion that there was uo infirmity in the Act,
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
371
even on that score.
Having decided all the points
r96o
raised on behalf of the appella11t b_efore it, the High
-
The State of
Court allowed the appellant to raise another controw.,1 Bfngal
versy, which had not been raised before the learned
& qthers
single Judge, namely, whether it was incumbent on
v.
the Government to frame a development scheme, after Naba Kumar Seal
possession had been taken by it, of the land in quesSinha C. ].
tion. Ordinarily, such a controversy should not have
been allowed to be raised for the first time in the court
of appeal. Be that as it may, it came to the conclusion
that even though the Government was entitled to deal
with the land on an emergency basis under s. 7 of the
Act, it was incumbent on the State Governmlmt to
frame a development scheme after possession had
been ·taken. The main reason for this conclusion as
given by the High Court is that though s. 7 had
armed the Government with the power to take possession of the property before framing a scheme of
development, the section does not, in terms, dispense
with the necessity of framing a development scheme,
after the emergency had been declared and possession
taken. In that view of the matter, the court of appeal
allowed the appeal in part and directed a writ of
mandamus to issue to the respondents before it, requiring them to proceed to frame a development scheme in
terms of the Act. The State of West Bengal and other
officials who had been impleaded as respondents in
the High Court applied for leave to appeal to this
Court from the said judgment of the appeal court.
The High Court granted the leave prayed for, on condition that the appellants paid for the representation
of the respondent before this Court by a junior Advocate of this Court. That is how the matter comes
before this Court.
It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the
appeal court had misapprehended the scope and effoct
of ss. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act; that the Act contemplated two categories of acquisition proceedings, namely,
(1) acquisition under s. 6, after compliance with the
provisions of s. 5 and (2) acquisition in case of an
emergency under s. 7 read with s. 6 of the Act; that
the condition precedent laid down in s. 5 necessitating
48
3i2
Sl!PHEME C:Ol:HT REPOBTS
[ UlGl]
i96u
the framing of a scheme before 1L rlcclaration under
R. 6 of the Act was made, is spedfically excluded in
The SJr4lr of
ww B"'sal
cases of emergency once a declaration of emergency
6- Othm
under H. 7 is made.
The High Cout was, therefore, in
v.
error in insisting upon the framing of a development
Naba Kum•• Sc•I scheme under s. 5 of the Act, whlm that section had
not be!'n made applicable to the case of an emergency
S1t1ha C. ].
· · ·
0
h
I
L
j
acqms1t10n.
nee t e property las uccn acquire<
it vests in the Government and thereafter the original
holder of the property has no Hay in the matter, cxc·cpt·
on the question of amount of compensation. '.\Ir. ~en,
for thn appellants, finally contended that if the High
Court was right in insisting uron a He heme uf de\'elopment being framed, the whole p•1rpos!1 of declaring an
emergpncy would be defeated.
The learned counsel for the respondcut has nut rn1Ldc
any serious attempt to meet the euntentiuns raised ou
behalf of the appellants, but ha" attempl!'d to show
that the provisions of the Act, in so far as thcv "ivc
'
0
special powers to Government to d(,clare an cnwrgeucy
and thPn to proceed with the acquisitiou without the
nece8sity of framing a. scheme of developmcut, were
unconstitutional, bot.h in view of the rrov is ions of
Art. 31(2) and Art. 19(l)(f).
Ill' abo made <L ven·
feeble attempt to rely upon the pr"visions of Art. 14
of the Constitution and to suggest that the l'l'8]Ju11dcnt
was being discrimiwLted against in the appli(>ation of
the emcrgeucy provisions of the Act to his case.
In our opinion, the coutentions raised on behalf uf
the appellants are n:anifestly well-founded and the
High Court was clearly in orrnr in issuing the mandamus against the appellants.
Before dealing with tl1e content.ions raised on behalf
of the parties, it is convenient, a.t this stag(., to set out
the relevant prnvisior1s of th<' Act. The Act. replaced t ht·
West Bengal Laud Denlopmcnt and Planning Ordinance, I I of 1948, which was in similar terms.
Tho Aet
and t.he Orclinanct', which it replac:cd, were enacted
apparently as a result of the emergency created by the
continua.I !'XOdus of Hindus from East. l'akistan 011 a
mass scale a11d tlw consequent iznrnigration of <L very
large population iuto West lle11gal, as a result of the
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37.3
r960
partition.
The Act was enacted " to provide for the
acquisition and development of land for public purThe State of
poses". It adopts the definitions of" land", "Collecwest Bengal
tor" and "company" as in the Land Acquisition Act,
& Others
I of 1894, to which it is, in its terms, supplementary. In .
v.
the definition section 2, "development scheme" means Naba Kumar Stal
a scheme for the development of land for any public
s;,, 1~. 1.
purpose ; and a" notified area " has been defined as an
area declared as such under sub-s. (1) of s. 4. "Public
purpose" has been defined in cl. (d) of s.2 as including
(i) the settlement of immigrants who have migrated into
the State of West Bengal on account of circumstances
beyond their control, (ii) the establishment of towns,
model villages and agricultural colonies, (iii) the creation of better living conditions in urban and rural
areas, and (iv) ·the improvement and·development of
agriculture, forestry, fisheries and industries; but does
not include a purpose of the Union. Section 3 authorises the State Government to appoint the "prescribed
authority " for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
Section14 is, in terms, analogous to s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act and authorises the State Government
by notification in the Official Gazette to declare any
area to be a notified area on being satisfied that that
specified area is needed or is likely to be needed for
any public purpose. The Act was amended in 1955 bv
the West Bengal Act, XXIII of 1955, and one of tl;e
amendments made by that Act was to add s. 4A
making provision for objections to be taken by any
person interested in any land within the notified area,
fo~ an opportunity of being heard and for an enquiry
bemg made on the merits of such objections, and
finally for submission to the State Government of a
report on the objections raised. We are no.t concerned
in this case with s. 4A .• because it was inserted into
the Act after the decision of the case by the High
Court. Section 5, with which we are mainly concerned
in this case is in these terms :-
" 5(1). The State Government may direct the
prescri?ed authority, or, if it so thinks fit in any case,
authonse any Company or local authority, to prepare
in accordance wiith the rules, a development schem~
3i4
Kt.:PREl\lE COVRT REPOHTS
[ 1961]
1960
in respect of any notifiP<I area and thereupon such
The State of
scheme shall be prepared accordingly and submitted,
West Bengal
together with such part icularn as may be prescribed
& Othm
by the rules, to the State Government for it8 sanction :
.
v.
.
Provided that no scheme shall be ne.ce8sary for
.\aba 1<1"""' Stal acquisition of land for the public purpose Rpecified in.
--
sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of section 2.
Sinha C. ].
(2
d
l
). A eve opment scheme submitted to the State
Government under sub-section (I) may, after taking
into consideration any report submitted under subsection (2) of section 4A, be sanctioned by it either
without any modification or subject. to such modifications as it may deem fit."
The proviso to s. 5 was added by the same amending
Act (West Bengal Act XXIlI of 1955) and is likewise
inapplicable to this •Jase. Section 6 again is, in terms,
analogous to s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, which
provides for the declaration to be published in the
Official Gazette to the effect that the State Govnnment was satisfied that any land in a notified area, for
which a development scheme has been sanctioned
under s. 5(2) of the Act, is needed for the purpose of
executing such a scheme, unless there already has
been a declaration made un<lPr s. 7 of the Act.
Section 7, w hi oh is another section, the construction of
which is involved in this casr, is in these terms:-
"In cases of urgency, if in respect of any notified
are11. the State Government is satisfied that. the preparation of a de\·elopmcnt scheme is likPly to be
delayrcl, the St11.te Government may, 1it any time,
make a declaration under section 6, in respect of such
notified area or any' part thereof though no develop.
ment scheme has either been prepared or sanctioned
under section 5."
Section 8 makes the provisionH of the Land Acquisition Act applicable to acquisition proceedings taken in
pursuance of the declaration made, either under s. 6
or s. 7 of the Act, subject to certain reservations made
in pursuance of the prol'isos to s. 8, relating to taking
possession, determination of the amount of compensation, and of market value. The other sections of the
Act are not relevant to the point in controversy in
this case and, therefore, need not be a.d vertod to.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
375
It will be noticed thats. 7 is in the nature of a proviso
r960
to s. 6. Section 7 provides that in cases of urgency, if
S
G
.
. fi d h
h
.
The. State of
the tate overnment IS sat1s e t at t e preparation
West Bengal
of a development scheme is likely to be delayed, it
& Others
may make a declaration under.s. 6 that the land was
v.
needed for a public purpose, even though no develop- Naba Kumar Seal
ment scheme has either been prepared or sanctioned
under s. 5.
The section, therefore, in clear terms,
Sinha c. J.
authorises the State Government to issue the necessary
declaration under s. 6, which puts the machinery of
land acquisition proceedings into motion, if it is satisfied t,hat the public purpose necessitating the acquisition of the land in question would be subserved without
the preparation of a development scheme.. The Act
itself came into existence in circumstances of great
urgency. Naturally, therefore, in suitable cases, where
the preparation of a development scheme would cause
delay, the Government was authorised to proceed with
the acquisition of land after making the necessary
declaration under s. 6. As already indicated after that
declaraltion has been made by Government in the
Official Gazette and the necessary enquiry made about
compensation and the making of the award, the property becomes vested in the Government. The question naturally arises whether there is anything in the
Act which makes it obligatory on the State Government to prepare a scheme of development thereafter.
The High Court has recognised the need for taking
speedy action to meet the emergency created by the
heavy influx of immigrants. The High Court has
observed that s. 7 does not, in terms, dispense with the
framing of a development scheme and that it merely
says that the Government may issue a declaration
under s. 6, even though no development scheme has
been framed. But the High Court has farther observed
that even after taking possession of the property
under r. 8, framed under the Act, within three days,
there is no reason why the normal process envisaged
in the Act should not be gone through. The argument
proceeds further that the Act itself contemplated land
planning and development and therefore the framing of
a development scheme was an essential part of the
:liG
f.>UP.IUDIE COCRT HEPORTS
[ l!J(il l
'960
process.
Hence, in the view of the High Court the
T'" ''"'' ,1
framing of a de\•elopmt•nt scheme was neceRsary in
11.,.,, 11,.,8,1
tho normal ''01irse, bpfore the declaration under s. 6 is
.-. or""'
made hy the (;overnm1•nt, and in the cas<' of urgency
v.
under s. 7, afwr taking possession of the land in
.\'ala ''""""' y,./ question.
In our opinion, such a construction of
the provisions of th~ Act is nut warranted hy the terms
Sinha C. }.
-
of the Act..
The addition of the proviso to s. 5, quoted
above, makes it cle11r that the Legislature has recugnis£>d the necessity in special circumstances of not
framing a scheme in the case of the public purpose
cont-0mplatcd in cl. (d)(i) of s. 2, namely, for the purpose
of settlement of immigrants. On a fair reading of tho
relevant provisions of the Statute, it becomes clear
tha•, the Act contemplat-Od acquisitions of two distinct
classes, namely, (I) where the Government had first
considered and sanctioned a development scheme
under the provisions of s. 5 and then made a declara,
tion that the land in a notified area was needed for
the purpose of executing the particular development
scheme and (2) where t.he notification under s. 6 is
made without any development scheme being prepamd
and sanctioned under s. 5.
Once the deelaration is
made under s. 6, the machinery of the Land Acquisit.ion Act, I of 1894, cPmes into opera! ion, of course
•uhject tot he resrrn.t.ions contained in the provioR to
s. 8, as aforesaid.
Th<' Land AcC]uisition Act it.self
does not contemplalf• th" preparation of any such
scheme of (leveloprnt>nt.
In other words, s. 7 compleLely rlispensrs with the Rtatutory necessity of preparing a scheme of development as envisaged ins. 5 of
the Act in cases where the Government has taken the
decision that it is necessary to proceed furthn with the
acquisition proceedings without waiting for the preparation of a scheme. To insist upon the preparation
of ;1 development scheme would amount to rendering
tbl' provisious of s. 7 otiose.
There is no justification
for the observation made by the High Court that the
Legislature did not intend that the State Government
should proceed with the land acquisition proceedings
under the Act without framing a Mcheme of development.
1 S.C.It. SUPitEME COUitT ItEPOitTS
377
The High Court has recognised the legal position
r9uu
that it is open to the Government to take possession
Tiu :ilnlc 1Jj
of the land under acquisition within three days after · w"' l!rni;at
the making of the declaration of urgency under s. 7,
~· 01h"·'
but has insisted that, even after taking possession as
v.
a measure of urgency, the Government was bound to cVaua liwaM Seal
prepare a scheme of. development. If that were so,
the question naturally arises: to what use the land so
"'"'"' c. J.
taken possession of was to be put. The taking of
possession in cases of urgency would itself predicate
the use of the land thus taken possession of by the
Government. But if the Government were to wait
for the preparation and sanction of the scheme before
putting the land acquired to any use, the very purpose of declaring the urgency and the taking of
possession would be defeated. It is clear, therefore,
that the Legislature did not mean to insist upon the
preparation of a scheme of development in cases of
land acquisition brought within the purview of s. 7 of
the Act.
That disposes of the appeal.
Bnt the learned
counsel for the respondent appealed to the provisions
of Arts. 14, l9(l)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution in
aid of his contention that s. 7 of the Act was ultra
vires.
Apparently, there is no discrimination. As
already indicated, there. are two classes of cases into
which the land acquisition proceedings envisaged by
the Act fall.
The two classes can be easily identified
and the purpose of the classification is based on a
rational consideration, having due regard to the purpose ·and policy underlying the Act, namely, to
acquire land for tho public purpose, inter alia, of
resettling immigrants who had to leave their hearth
and home on account of circumstances beyond their
control. Such cases of urgency, as come nnder s. 7,
are clearly meant to serve the main purpose of the
Act.
In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance
in the contention that discrimination is implicit in the
provisions of s. 7.
The attack on the Act based on Arts. 19(l)(f) and
31(2) of tho Constitution is futile in view of the provisions of Art. 31B, which is in these terms:-
3iS
SL' l'HE~IE COL' J{T HEPOHTS
[!!Jul]
'~ 00
"Without prejuuicu to the generality of the provisio11s contained in article :HA, none of the Acts and
Ti;,- . ...,!:c:c ··f
11-,,1 f.lc;,_,.,1
Regulatio11s Hpccified in the l\i11th Schedule nor any
, .... 01•:",
of the pruvisio11H thereof shall be deemed to be void,
'·
or c\'1)r·to have hecorne void, on thu ground that such
Saoa ;,·,,,,,,., Seal Aet, Hegulat ion or provision is inconsistent with, or
·--·
take,; a11iL.1· or abridges •~n.v of the nghts conferred b_r,
S11,f1u C. _J.
"
any pro1·isious of thi8 P<J.rL, au<l notwithstanding auy
judgnwut, <focrcc or vrd1,r of any court or tribuual tu
the CIJll tt«Lr.1-, each of the Haid Acto; aud ~{egulatious
shall, subject to the power of any competeut L<'gislatun• to repeal or 1tn.:cn<lcd it., continue in force."
The Act in question is t.he last entry (serial number 20)
in th'' :\inth S"hedule.
Article 31B, quoted above,
which renders tne Act.immune from all attaeb based
on the provisiims of Part Ill of the Constitution
relating to fundamental rights, makes it unuecessa.ry
to discuss with reference to the provisions of the
sta.tme that, cveu if the question were open, the Act
does not suffer from any such infirmity, as is attributed to it.
In view of the considerations set out above, we
allow this appeal, ~et a.side the judgmoul under appeal
with costs here 1tnd in the High Court.
The respondent's petitiun questioning the 1·iros of the Act is
dismistie<l.
Appeal allowed.