TMI Blog1969 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961, hereinafter called the Maharashtra Act , was challenged. It was also sought to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act XXI of 1950) as amended by the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act (Act III of 1954) read with the relevant rules. 2. The appellants are land owners in Pathri Taluka of Parbhani District. This district was originally a part of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and the provisions of the Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950 were applicable there. By amending Act No. III of 1954 which received the assent of the President on 31st January 1954 a number of amendments were made. Section 38(E) was inserted. By that secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Section 38(E) of Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950. The grounds of attack, inter alia, were that Articles 19(f) and 31 of the Constitution had been contravened and that the aforesaid Act had not been reserved for and had not received the assent of the President. The validity of the notification issued in May 1957 was also attacked. This petition was dismissed by the High Court in March 1960. In January 1961 this Court granted special leave to appeal against that judgment. In March 1961 during the pendency of the appeal the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Inamdars of Sulhanagar and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. AIR1961AP523 struck down Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950 as amended by Act III of 1954 on the sole ground that it had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n conditions with effect from the date notified by the Government was ultra vires Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The High Court referred to its earlier decision in special Civil Application No. 1128 of 1959 in which the same contention had been pressed but had not been accepted. The High Court also relied on a decision of this Court in Sri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay 61 Bom. L.R. 811 in which the Constitutional validity of similar provisions contained in Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had been upheld. 6. The present appeal must fail. The provisions of the Maharashtra Act as also of the Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950 together with the amending Act are immune from any challenge on the ground of contravent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1950 as amended by Act III of 1954 was in force at the time when the notification was made in May 1957 pursuant to which proceedings were taken which were challenged by the appellants. As regards the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) by which the Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950 was struck down as not having received the assent of the President under Article 31(3) the position taken up in the writ petition was that such assent had been given to it on April 3, 1958 and till then the said Act was not valid and operative. According to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950 had never been assented to by the President although it had received the assent of the Rajpramukh of the erstwhile Hyderabad St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
