1994 (7) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Note:- A Critical Analysis of the Constitutional Validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act and the expression 'deprive of his right of property' under Article 300-A: The Patna High Court's Stand

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Gujarat Amendment) Act 8 of 1982.
2. Whether the Amendment Act is ultra vires the Constitution.
3. The retrospective effect of the Amendment Act.
4. Compensation for deprivation of property under the Amendment Act.

Summary:

1. Constitutionality of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Gujarat Amendment) Act 8 of 1982:
The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Amendment Act, which abolished Girasdari or Barkhalidari tenures and vested the rights in the State. The Amendment Act aimed to conform with the legislative policy by including mines, minerals, and quarries under the State's control, which were previously excluded by judicial interpretation. The court held that the Amendment Act, in pith and substance, is predominately for the abolition and extinguishment of the right in lands comprising mines, minerals, and quarries held by Girasdar, Barkhalidar, or any person under a grant or agreement or by operation of a decree, order, or judgment of a court and vest them in the State of Gujarat for public use.

2. Whether the Amendment Act is ultra vires the Constitution:
The appellants contended that the Amendment Act was void under Entry 54, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The court found no merit in this contention, stating that the State Legislature has the power under Entry 18 (land) and Entry 23 (Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development) of List II (State List) and Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List). The Amendment Act received the assent of the President and is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution. Thus, it is not ultra vires the power of the State Legislature.

3. The retrospective effect of the Amendment Act:
The appellants argued that the retrospective operation of Sections 69 and 69A from May 1, 1960, is illegal and ultra vires. The court held that the power to make law prospectively includes the power to make it retrospectively unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution. The retrospective operation was given to align with the date of the formation of the Gujarat State, thus making it constitutionally valid.

4. Compensation for deprivation of property under the Amendment Act:
The appellants claimed that the compensation provided under Section 69A(4) of the Code is void as it is not just equivalent to the property acquired. The court held that the right to property under Article 300A is not a basic feature of the Constitution and does not require payment of just compensation or indemnification for expropriated property. The principles laid in Section 69A(4) are relevant, and the resultant amount is not illusory. Therefore, the Amendment Act is not ultra vires of Article 300A.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the Amendment Act was upheld as constitutional. The compensation or amount payable under Section 69A(4) is to be worked out, and the appellants are to cease working the mines immediately. The State is directed to take immediate action in this regard.

← Previous Next →