1957 (3) TMI 58 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.
2. Enforceability of the order dated January 27, 1954, by the Governor of Bombay.
3. Validity of the amendments to the Act without the President's assent.
4. Conclusiveness of the State Government's declarations under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
5. Application of the rule of ejusdem generis to the term "or otherwise" in Section 6.
6. Validity of the order against a deceased person.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Act based on fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. The Court referred to the decision in *State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji* [1955] 1 S.C.R. 777, which upheld the validity of the Act. The Court concluded that the Act did not become void under Article 13 of the Constitution because it was not inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The Act was deemed valid even if it did not explicitly state "for a public purpose," as the whole tenor and intendment of the Act indicated that requisition was for a public purpose.

2. Enforceability of the Order Dated January 27, 1954:
The petitioner contended that the order was not enforceable as it was directed against her deceased husband. The Court held that the order under Section 6(4)(a) of the Act was not in the nature of judicial proceedings between the Government and named parties. The fact that the petitioner's husband was dead on the date of the order did not affect its enforceability. The Court noted that the petitioner had timely notice of the order, as she found a copy affixed to the outer door of the premises. Therefore, the order remained valid despite any irregularity in service.

3. Validity of the Amendments to the Act Without the President's Assent:
The petitioner argued that the amendments to the Act required the President's assent under Article 31(3) of the Constitution. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the amendments were merely extensions or explanatory of the substantive Act, which was an existing law within the meaning of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act, being good law before the commencement of the Constitution, did not become void, and the amendments were valid even without the President's assent.

4. Conclusiveness of the State Government's Declarations Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act:
The petitioner contended that the declarations made by the State Government under Sections 5 and 6 were conclusive and impaired the powers of the High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court held that the declarations were conclusive evidence of the facts stated and could not be reopened by the courts. The Court emphasized that the legislature's wisdom in making such declarations conclusive was not to be questioned.

5. Application of the Rule of Ejusdem Generis to the Term "or Otherwise" in Section 6:
The petitioner argued that the term "or otherwise" in Section 6 should be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding words. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the words "or otherwise" were not words of limitation but of extension, intended to cover all possible ways in which a vacancy may occur. The Court held that the legislature used these words in an all-inclusive sense, and there was no room for the application of the rule of ejusdem generis.

6. Validity of the Order Against a Deceased Person:
The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it was directed against her deceased husband. The Court held that the order was not in the nature of judicial proceedings and proceeded on the basis that the tenant had ceased to be in occupation of the premises. The fact that the petitioner's husband was dead did not affect the enforceability of the order, as it was meant to address the vacancy of the premises. The Court concluded that any irregularity in the service of the order did not affect its validity.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed with costs, as all the grounds urged in support of the petitions failed. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, the validity of the amendments, the conclusiveness of the State Government's declarations, and the enforceability of the order despite the petitioner's husband's death.