9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guments have been addressed in appeal No. 177 of 1968 and it is stated that the decision in that appeal would govern the other appeals also. Prithvi Chand appellant in appeal No. 177 of 1968 is a dis- placed person from West Pakistan. He filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court on the allegation that he was the owner of agricultural land and buildings in West in the Union Territory of Delhi The claim of the appellant was verified in respect of agricultural land for four standard acres and 9 1/2 units. In November 1953 the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property. (Rural) allotted barani agricultural land measuring 28 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Tihar to the appellant and delivered him possession thereof. The appellant claimed to be in possession of the land since then. He also claimed to have spent more than Rs. 3,000/- on effecting improvements on the land. On July 10, 1959 the Settlement Officer-cum- Managing Officer issued notice to the appellant stating that he was not entitled to the transfer of the land allotted to him as it was included in urban limits and was of the value of more than Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant was called upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n urban area. As the land in dispute was situated in urban area, and was of the value of more than Rs. 10,000/-, the same, it was submitted, could be transferred only by means of sale and not by means of allotment. As against that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the Explanation to rule 49 could not be given retrospective effect as the Central Government had no power to amend rule 49 retrospectively. This contention on behalf of the appellant did not find favour with the learned judges of the High Court. Reference in this context was made to the fact that the rules made under section 40 of the Act had to be laid under sub-section (3) of that section before each House of Parliament for a period of 30 ,days for annulment and modification, if so considered proper. In the result the appeal was dismissed. Mr. Mehta on behalf of the appellants in the four appeals has argued in this Court that rule 49 could not be amended with retrospective effect and that the Explanation added to the rule could not operate from a date prior to that on which it was added as a result of amendment made in, February 1960. The view taken by the High Court, according to the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make a rule retroactively, the Central Government would be acting in excess of its power if it gave retrospective effect to any rule. The underlying principle is that unlike Sovereign Legislature which has power to enact laws with retrospective operation, authority vested with the power of making subordinate legislation has to act within the limits of its power and cannot transgress the same. The initial difference between subordinate legislation and the statute laws lies in the fact that a subordinate law making body is bound by the terms of its delegated or derived authority and that court of law, as a general rule, will not give effect to the rules, thus made, unless satisfied that all the conditions precedent to the validity of the rules have been fulfilled (see Craies on Statute Law,p. 297 Sixth Edition). The learned Solicitor General has not been able to refer to anything in section 40 from which power of the Central Government to make retrospective rules may be inferred. In the absence of any such power, the Central Government, in our view, acted in excess of its power in so far as it gave retrospective effect to the Explanation to rule- 49. The Explanation, in our opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make a rule, regulation or bye-law which can operate with retrospective effect." Reference was made in the above cited case to an earlier decision of this Court in B. S. Vadera etc. v. Union of India & Others([1968] 3 S.C. R. 575) wherein it had been observed with reference to rules framed under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution that those rules, could be made with retrospective operation. Yadera's case was distinguished on the ground that the view expressed therein was based upon the language employed in the proviso to article 309 that any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. It was also observed : "As the Legislature can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively there can be hardly any justification for saying that the President or the Governor should not be able to make rules in the same manner so as to give them prospective as well as retrospective operation. For these reasons the ambit and content of the rule making power under article 309 can furnish no analogy or parallel to the present case." We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Explanation added to rule 49 in the present case cannot be given retro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
