TMI Blog1961 (12) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f land by the State Government for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage, or for the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas............ by the construction or reconstruction of dwelling places for people residing in such areas . The Act provided for payment of compensation in respect of requisition and acquisition made under it. 3 . An order was made under the Act on July 22, 1957 requisitioning certain lands belonging to one of the appellants, the other appellant being a lessee thereof, and it was stated in the order that possession would be taken on August 2, 1957. Thereupon the appellants fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to a law of requisition or acquisition by the State covered by Art. 31(2) had been based on two earlier decisions of this Court, namely, The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji [1955]1SCR777 and Lilavati Bai v. The State of Bombay [1957]1SCR721 , both of which must, in view of the decision in Kavalappara Kochuni's [1960]3SCR887 , case be deemed to have lost their authority after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. It was pointed out that in Kavalappara Kochuni's case [1960]3SCR887 it was said that Bhanji Munji's case [1955]1SCR777 no longer holds the field after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 . The same observation, it was contended, would also apply to the case of Lilavati Bai v. The State of Bombay [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1960]3SCR887 that Bhanji Munji's case [1955]1SCR777 no longer holds the field has, therefore, to be understood as meaning that it no longer governs a case of deprivation of property by means other than requisition and acquisition by the State. Kavalappara Kochuni's case [1960]3SCR887 was not concerned with a law of requisition or acquisition. It was not directly concerned with the question whether Bhanji Munji's case [1955]1SCR777 would not after the amendment, apply even to a law of requisition or acquisition of property governed by Art. 31(2), as it now stands, and did not decide that question. 9 . Indeed it might be said that the reasoning in some passages of the judgment in the Kavalappara [1961]1SCR128 decision would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
