9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1972 (8) TMI 130 - SC - Indian LawsWhether in exercise of the powers conferred by section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 the Central Government could amend rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 with retrospective effect? Whether the allotment in favour of the appellants could be cancelled under some other provision of law? Held that - Accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and quash the order relating to the cancellation of allotment of the lands in dispute in favour of the appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective amendment of Rule 49 under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 2. Validity of the cancellation of land allotment to the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Retrospective Amendment of Rule 49: The primary issue in these appeals was whether the Central Government had the authority to amend Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 with retrospective effect under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The appellant argued that the Central Government lacked the power to give retrospective effect to the Explanation added to Rule 49 in 1960. The Explanation stated that "agricultural land" referred only to land in rural areas. The High Court had upheld the retrospective amendment, but this was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined Section 40, which allows the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. However, the Court found no provision in Section 40 that expressly or implicitly granted the Central Government the power to make rules with retrospective effect. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must conform to the enabling statute and cannot exceed the authority granted by it. The Court cited precedents, including the cases of Cannapore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise and The Income Tax Officer, Alleppy v. M. C. Ponnoose, to support the principle that subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized by the enabling statute. The Court concluded that the Central Government acted in excess of its power by giving retrospective effect to the Explanation to Rule 49. Therefore, the Explanation could not operate retrospectively and would only be effective from the date it was added in February 1960. 2. Validity of the Cancellation of Land Allotment: The appellant, a displaced person from West Pakistan, had been allotted agricultural land in Delhi in 1953. However, in 1959, the Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Officer issued a notice stating that the appellant was not entitled to the transfer of the land as it was within urban limits and valued over Rs. 10,000. The appellant's objections were rejected, and the allotment was canceled, except for one Khasra number valued below Rs. 10,000. The appellant's appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and his writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the retrospective application of the Explanation to Rule 49 was invalid. Consequently, the cancellation of the appellant's land allotment based on this Explanation was also invalid. The Court held that the rules framed under the Act must conform to Section 40, and the retrospective amendment did not meet this requirement. The Court also noted that the laying of rules before Parliament, as required by Section 40(3), did not validate a rule if it was not made in conformity with the enabling statute. The Court emphasized that courts have the authority to scrutinize the validity of subordinate legislation and declare it ultra vires if it exceeds the rule-making power granted by the enabling statute. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and quashed the order canceling the allotment of land to the appellants. The Court held that the Explanation added to Rule 49 could not be given retrospective effect and that the Central Government acted beyond its power in doing so. The appellants were entitled to costs incurred in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
|
