9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. 2. Retrospective application of the amendment introduced by Section 10E of the 1958 Act. 3. Applicability of the term 'premises' to agricultural land. 4. Validity of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958: The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Section 5(1) of the 1958 Act, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 5(1) conferred power on the Estate Officer to make an order of eviction against persons in unauthorized occupation of public premises. The challenge was based on the assertion that the Government had two alternative remedies for eviction: one through a court of law by instituting a suit for eviction, and the other through the 1958 Act. The appellants argued that the unguided discretion of the authorities to choose between these remedies allowed for arbitrary application, thus violating Article 14. 2. Retrospective Application of the Amendment Introduced by Section 10E of the 1958 Act: The 1958 Act was amended in 1968 by introducing Section 10E, which created a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding regarding the eviction of any person in unauthorized occupation of public premises. The appellants contended that this amendment was not retrospective and therefore did not save the proceedings forming the subject matter of the appeals. 3. Applicability of the Term 'Premises' to Agricultural Land: In one of the appeals, it was contended that the term 'premises' did not apply to agricultural land and that legislation on agricultural land was within the exclusive legislative field of the State, making the Central Act unconstitutional. The High Court rejected these contentions, affirming that the term 'premises' as defined in the Act included any land, thereby encompassing agricultural land as well. 4. Validity of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: During the pendency of the appeals, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, received the President's assent and was deemed to have come into force on 16 September 1958, except for Sections 11, 19, and 20, which came into force on 23 August 1971. The 1971 Act repealed the 1958 Act and included provisions validating actions taken under the 1958 Act. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the 1971 Act, arguing that it could not validate actions taken under an unconstitutional Act. The Court held that the 1971 Act was a constitutionally valid piece of legislation, retrospectively validating actions taken under the 1958 Act and removing the vice of discrimination found in the earlier Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958: The Supreme Court examined the challenge to Section 5(1) of the 1958 Act, which was argued to violate Article 14 due to the unguided discretion it conferred on authorities to choose between two remedies for eviction. The Court noted that the 1958 Act was designed to provide a speedy procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises. The Court referenced its earlier decision in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab, where a similar provision in the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, was held to violate Article 14 due to the unguided discretion it allowed. However, the Court distinguished the present case by noting that the 1971 Act had removed the discretion by providing only one procedure for eviction, thereby addressing the issue of discrimination. 2. Retrospective Application of the Amendment Introduced by Section 10E of the 1958 Act: The Court addressed the appellants' contention that the amendment introduced by Section 10E in 1968 was not retrospective. The Court held that the 1971 Act, which was retrospective from 16 September 1958, effectively validated actions taken under the 1958 Act. This retrospective application meant that the proceedings in question were saved by the 1971 Act, which provided a single, non-discriminatory procedure for eviction. 3. Applicability of the Term 'Premises' to Agricultural Land: The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the term 'premises' did not apply to agricultural land. It affirmed that the definition of 'premises' in the Act included any land, and there was nothing in the Act to exclude agricultural land from its scope. The Court also dismissed the contention that the Act violated Article 14 due to the availability of procedures under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, noting that the 1971 Act provided a single procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises. 4. Validity of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: The Court upheld the validity of the 1971 Act, which was designed to retrospectively validate actions taken under the 1958 Act. The Court emphasized that the legislature had the competence to enact laws with retrospective operation to validate actions taken under an earlier Act declared invalid. The 1971 Act effectively removed the vice of discrimination by providing a single procedure for eviction, thereby addressing the issues identified in the earlier decision of Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. The Court concluded that the 1971 Act was a valid piece of legislation, and the retrospective validation of actions taken under the 1958 Act was constitutionally permissible. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, with the Court affirming the constitutionality of the 1971 Act and its retrospective application. The Court held that the 1971 Act effectively addressed the issues of discrimination and unguided discretion found in the 1958 Act, thereby providing a valid and non-discriminatory procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises.
|
