TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 the Government of Punjab issued in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 a notification declaring that no rights of pre-emption shall exist with respect to urban or village immovable property or agricultural land when purchased by any person for setting up or extension of any industry in the State with the permission of the Director of Industries, Punjab. The plaintiffs contended that the notification issued by the Government did (not prejudicially affect their claim to preempt the sale. By order dated February 16, 1962 the Civil Court passed a decree for pre-emption conditionally on payment of the amount for which the property was sold. The Civil Court found that the defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty issued during the pendency of the appeal against the decree of the Trial Court did not disentitle the plaintiffs to maintain their claim of preemotion already exercised, and in respect of which a decree was granted to them. The High Court also held that s. 8(2) of Punjab Act 1 of 1913 did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution, but the notification dated September 3, 1962, was issued mala fide, and was on that account liable to be struck down as invalid. With special leave, the State of Punjab has appealed to this Court. It was urged, that s. 8 (2) infringes the guarantee of equality under Art. 14 of the Constitution. In terms, s. 8(2) provides The State Government may declare by notification that in any local area or with respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendants did not disclose the fact that a decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit, nor did any authority (except the Tehsildar) try to find out whether a decree had been passed in that suit; that it was never brought to the notice of any authority by the defendants that the finding of the Trial Court was against them and it was because they had failed to prove that they intended to set up a factory, no authority ever tried to learn anything about that finding; that only a few days after the filing of the appeal by the defendants against the decree of the Trial Court an affidavit was filed by one of the defendants that they intended to put up a factory on the land in question; that the District Inspector of Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain such an undertaking before the issue of the notification, no such agreement or undertaking was obtained from the defendants and all that was done was that on November 8, 1962 (a day before the date of the notification and some days before its publication) another affidavit was obtained from the defendants that the land had been purchased for establishing a factory and they solemnly undertook not to misuse or abuse the land , and declared and undertook that the land shall be used only for industrial purposes, but there was no manner of contract by them whereby they would have to surrender back the land in the event of their not using it for the purpose of establishing a factory . The High Court also observed that there was no allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of that suit. This was not done even after the matter was pointed out by the Tahsildar. In other words, either deliberately or by sheer avoidance no effort was made to find out what finding the Trial ,Court had given in the matter . . . . In spite of it having been pointed out that before the issue of the notification an agreement be obtained from respondents 5 5 5 2 and 3 (the defendants) against misuse and misutilisation of the land for the purpose other than that for which it was being exempted from the right of pre-emption of the, petitioners and for not making it an otherwise profiteering transaction, no such agreement, binding in law, was obtained from these respondents '(the defendants), but instead the matter was slurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nduct which justifies an inference that the official act was done for a collateral purpose, and since no such attempt was made and the High Court did not find that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act, the plea that it was bona fide must fail. We do not think that the law casts any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. What matters were considered, what matters were placed before the final authority, and who acted on behalf of the State Government in issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Government, and it would be placing an int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
