Skip to content


Waqf Estate of Nawab Mohd. Azmat Ali Khan Vs. U.P. State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Ref. No. 8 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1956All416
ActsUttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948 - Sections 11; Constitution of India (4th Amendment) Act - Article 31B
AppellantWaqf Estate of Nawab Mohd. Azmat Ali Khan
RespondentU.P. State and anr.
Appellant AdvocateVidya Bhushan Gupta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
Excerpt:
property - effect of fourth amendment of constitution of india - section 11 of u.p. land acquisition (rehabilitation of refugees) act, 1948 and article 31 b of constitution of india - u.p. land acquisition (rehabilitation of refugees) act, 1948 included in ninth schedule of the constitution by fourth constitutional amendment - outcome by virtue of provisions of article 31 b - declares that the acts specified in the 9th schedule deemed to be valid and also to have always been valid. - - in 1955, however the constitution was amended, and as a result thereof, the decision of the division bench has ceased to be good law......of the reference, i.e., 21-12-1953 there was no reported decision of this court on that point. the learned judge was, therefore, competent under the proviso of section 113 to make a reference to this court.2. during the pendency of this reference, an exactly similar question came up for decision before a division bench of this court. the decision is reported in -- 'h. p. khandelwal v. state of utar pradesh', (s) air 1955 all 12 (a). the said bench held the aforesaid provisions to be ultra vires the legislature. in 1955, however the constitution was amended, and as a result thereof, the decision of the division bench has ceased to be good law.article 31b of the constitution declares that none of the acts specified in the 9th schedule thereof, nor any of the provisions thereof, shall be.....
Judgment:

Brij Mohan Lall, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar under Section 113, Civil P C. A question arose before him about the validity of Section 11, U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act No. 26 of 1948. Till the date of the reference, i.e., 21-12-1953 there was no reported decision of this Court on that point. The learned Judge was, therefore, competent under the proviso of Section 113 to make a reference to this Court.

2. During the pendency of this reference, an exactly similar question came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court. The decision is reported in -- 'H. P. Khandelwal v. State of Utar Pradesh', (S) AIR 1955 All 12 (A). The said Bench held the aforesaid provisions to be ultra vires the legislature. In 1955, however the Constitution was amended, and as a result thereof, the decision of the Division Bench has ceased to be good law.

Article 31B of the Constitution declares that none of the Acts specified in the 9th Schedule thereof, nor any of the provisions thereof, shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void, on the ground that such an Act or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provision of Part 3, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts shall, subject to the power of any competent legislature to repeal or amend it, continue to be in force. By the fourth amendment the impunged Act, i.e., the U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, has been included in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution.

3. The result, therefore, is that by virtue of provisions of Article 31B this Act should be deemed to be valid and also to have always been valid. We answer the reference accordingly.

4. Let the papers be returned to the learned Additional Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar.

We assess the fee of the learned StandingCounsel at Rs. 80/-.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //