1989 (2) TMI 60 - HC - Benami Property

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
2. Retrospective application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence of Parliament:

The primary contention was whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, particularly concerning agricultural lands. The petitioners argued that the Act falls under Entry 6 of List III (Concurrent List) and Entry 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which would exclude Parliament's competence over agricultural lands. The respondents argued that the Act is relatable to Entries 10 and 7 of the Concurrent List or, alternatively, to Entry 97 of List I (residuary entry).

The court held that the Act is primarily relatable to Entry 10 of List III, which deals with "Trusts and Trustees." The relationship between a benamidar and the real owner is akin to that between a trustee and a beneficiary. The court cited various precedents, including Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh and CED v. Aloke Mitra, to explain that the relationship in benami transactions is akin to a trust relationship. The court also noted that the Act does not primarily deal with the transfer of property or land but with prohibiting benami transactions and barring related legal remedies and defenses. Any incidental impact on agricultural lands does not affect the Act's validity, applying the doctrine of pith and substance.

The court also referenced the Supreme Court's approach in cases like A. S. Krishna v. State of Madras and Gift-tax Officer (Second) v. D. H. Nazareth, emphasizing that if an enactment is in substance within the legislative competence of Parliament, incidental encroachments on State List subjects do not render it invalid. The court concluded that the Act is within Parliament's legislative competence and does not violate the constitutional scheme.

2. Retrospective Application of the Act:

The second issue was whether Section 4 of the Act, which bars suits, claims, or actions to enforce rights in respect of benami property, applies retrospectively to transactions entered into before the Act's commencement on May 19, 1988. The petitioners argued that the Act should not apply retrospectively as it would unsettle vested rights and disturb transactions that were legal when entered into. They referenced the Law Commission's 57th Report, which suggested that pre-Act transactions should be exempted.

The court observed that Section 4 uses the phrase "shall lie," indicating a prospective application. However, the court reasoned that the language and purpose of the Act imply that Section 4 applies to all benami transactions, regardless of when they were entered into. The court emphasized that the Act aims to eradicate the pernicious practice of benami transactions, which have significant public interest and revenue implications. The court noted that the omission of a specific exemption for pre-Act transactions in the final legislation indicated a deliberate legislative choice.

The court also addressed the argument that retrospectivity should not be presumed without clear legislative intent. It concluded that the remedial nature of the Act and its objective to curb benami transactions justify a retrospective application. The court cited previous judgments, including P. Ramachandra Rao v. G. Jangaiah and Velayudhan Ramakrishnan v. Rajeev, which supported the view that Section 4 applies to pre-Act transactions.

Conclusion:

The court rejected both contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the legislative competence of Parliament and the retrospective application of Section 4. The matters were then posted for disposal on merits.

← Previous Next →