TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner was allotted a piece of land on licence by the Respondents. The licence was cancelled on the allegation that petitioner had illegally made encroachment on further land and had illegally raised a structure on the land granted on licence. The respondent terminated the licence. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Act. The competent authority passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. Petitioner s appeal to the appellate authority under the Act was dismissed. The High Court also dismissed the petition preferred by the petitioner. This Court refused to grant special leave and dismissed petitioner s Special Leave Petition. Petitioner even so filed a Civil Suit which came to be dismissed for default of appearance. Meanwhile the petitioner had approached this court by way of a Special Leave Petition against an interlocutory order passed by the Civil Court. The said special leave petition also came to be dismissed for default of appearance. And thereafter the present Writ Petition has been instituted under Art. 32 ot the Constitution of India. In the petition as originally framed the constitutionality of the Act was not challenged. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs mentioned in Sec. 8 of the Act. These matters are summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; secondly, requiring the discovery and production of document; and thirdly, any other matter which may be prescribed. Sec. 10 of the Act provides for finality of orders in circumstances mentioned in Sec. tO of the Act therein. The learned Solicitor General has raised a preliminary objection on the threshold. It is contended that the Constitution Bench in Hari Singh s case has already pronounced that the legislature had the legislative competence to enact the impugned Act. Reliance in this context is placed-on the following passage from the Majority Judgment of Ray, J: Therefore, a validating law is upheld first by finding out whether the legislature possesses competence over the subject matter, and, secondly, whether by validation the legislature has removed the defect which the courts had found in previous law. The legislature had legislative competence to enact the 1971 Act. It means that it could legislate on the subject of providing a speedy procedure for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a view to ascertain under which entry the Act in question would fall, it is necessary to ascertain what is the subject matter of legislation applying the pith and substance test. Now so far as this question is concerned, the Constitution Bench in Hari Singh s case has in clear and unequivocal terms pronounced that the subject matter of the legislation is providing a speedy procedure for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises. As is evident from the passage extracted earlier. Apart from the name of the Act, the preamble to the Act itself makes it abundantly clear that the Act is designed to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from the public premises and for certain incidental matters. The scheme of the Act also indicates that the central theme of the legislation is to provide for speedy procedure in order to evict persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises. The scheme of the Act shows that apart from the dictionary of terms and expressions used in the Act, the vital provisions of the Act pertain to eviction of unauthorised occupants in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 after following the procedure under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) The Parliament can legislate in respect of property of the Union and revenue therefrom regardless of whether the property is situated in Union Territory or in a State. (2) But as regards the property situated in a State the property will be subject to legislation made by the State subject to the rider which follows. (3) While the State can legislate in respect of Union property situated in a State, with regard to such legislation in respect of the Union property Parliament can enact a legislation in respect of the property belonging to the Union of India and the revenue therefrom and in that event the legislation enacted by the Parliament will prevail as against the law enacted by the State. In so far as the legislation for providing a speedy procedure for eviction of an unauthorised occupant of public premises is concerned, it is not shown that there is any legislation enacted by the State Legislature which deals with this subject in so far as the property belonging to the Union of India is concerned. When the challenge to the Act came up for scrutiny in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in L. S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai and Ors., A.l.R. 1980 Madhya Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legislations pertain to the same subject-matter, the legislation enacted by the Parliament in regard to the property belonging to Union of India would prevail having regard to the mandate contained in Entry 32 as has been discussed earlier. Under the circumstances it is futile to contend that the Parliament has no legislative competence to legislate in respect of providing for a speedy remedy for eviction of unauthorised occupants from the property belonging to the Union of India. Entry 32 is wide enough to cover all legislations pertaining to the property of the Union of India including the legislation for eviction of unauthorised occupants from the property belonging to the Union of lndia. Once the conclusion is reached that the legislation falls under Entry 32, of List I, it is unnecessary to examine the scope of Entry 18 of List III, pertaining to land that is to say rights in or over land tenures including the relationship of land-lord-tenant and the collection of rents, transfer and alienation of agricultural land, land improvement, agricultural lands and acquisitions. Again, as explained by this Court in Indu Bhushan Bose v. Ram Sundari Anr., A.l.R. 1970 SC 228 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act was enacted under Entry 32, List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution, which relates to property of the Union and he revenue therefrom , and that this entry cannot be construed to include the property of a Government company which is a different and distinct legal entity from the Union. It may be conceded that the expression property of the Union , as used in Entry 32, List 1, cannot be Construed to include the property of a Government Company. But if Entry 32 gives jurisdiction to Parliament to enact the Act in respect of Government premises, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Entry 43 which relates to incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading jurisdictions read with Entry 95 which relates to jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in List 1, can be construed to confer power on Parliament to enact the Act in respect of premises belonging to a Government company. It seems however, more appropriate that in so far as the Act deals with a lessee or licensee of premises belonging to a Government company, the subject matter of the Act would be covered by Entries 6, 7 and 46 of List III. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
