text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
But the question is what is the mode of taking possession ? The Act is silent on the point. Ratio |
Unless possession is taken by the written agreement of the party concerned the mode of taking possession obviously would be for the authority to go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate that the authority has taken possession of the land. Ratio |
It may be in the form of a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a written declaration on the spot that the authority 10 SC 75 18 264 has taken possession of the land. Ratio |
The presence of the owner or the occupant of the land to effectuate the taking, of possession is not necessary. Ratio |
No further notice beyond that under section 9(1) of the act: is required. Ratio |
When possession has been taken, the owner or the occupant of the land is dispossessed. Ratio |
Once possession has been taken the land vests in the Government. Ratio |
In the instant case in agreement with the findings of the Court, I hold that the eye of law actual possession of the land in question was taken by the Tehsildar on the spot and the possession was handed over to the Principal of the Agricultural College. Ratio |
It appears that the appellant on his part thought that he never gave up possession and claimed to continue in actual possession of the disputed land, because of the stay order passed by the Government on or about the 16th April, 1959. Ratio |
Viewed in the light of the discussion of law I have made above, it would be noticed that possession of the land, in any event, was taken on the spot and it vested in the Government. Ratio |
The appellant 's resuming possession of the land after once it was validly taken by the Government had not the effect of undoing the fact of the vesting of the land in the Government. Ratio |
The Government or the Commissioner was not at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any portion of the land of which possession had been taken, under section 48(1) of the Act. RPC |
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. RPC |
One set of hearing fee. RPC |
V.P.S. Appeals dismissed. RPC |
Civil Appeals Nos. FAC |
2221 2225, and 2524 of 1972. FAC |
From the Judgment and orders dated the 18 11 71, 29 3 1972 and 5 2 1972 of the Delhi High Court in L.P. No. 53/71 and Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 612, 640, 643 and 649/71, 281/72 and 1052 of 1971 respectively. FAC |
A.K. Sen, Sarjoo Prasad Balram Senghal and C. P. Lal for the Appellants in CAs 2221 2225/72 B. Sen, S.P. Nayar and M.N. Shroff for Respondents 2 3, (In CAs. FAC |
2221 2225/72) for Respondents 1 4 in.C.A. 1801). FAC |
S.V. Gupte, Mrs. Leila Sait and U. K. Kaithan for Interveners (In CAs.2221 2225/72) and Appellants (In CAs.2524/72). FAC |
M. C. Bhandare, Sardar Bahadur Saharya, B. N. Kirpal and V. B. Saharya for the Appellant in CA 1801/72. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. FAC |
Whether the Notification No. SRO 2908, dated December 7, 1957 issued by the Central Government in purported exercise of its powers under section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) , is ultra vires the Central Government is the principal question that arises in these appeals which will be disposed of by a common judgment... |
The question has arisen in these circumstances: Section 2 of the Part States (Laws) Act, 1950, empowered the Central Government to extend by notification in the official Gazette to any Part State, or to any part of such State, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which is in force in... |
In exercise of this power, the Central Government by a Notification No. SRO 615 dated the 28th April 1951, extended to the then Part State of Delhi, the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (for short, the Bengal Act), with, inter alia, these modifications: "In sub section (2) of Section 6, (a)(b) for the words "add to... |
The relevant items in the modified Schedule were as follows: "8.Fruits, fresh and dried (except when sold in sealed containers) Pepper, tamarind and chillies.Turmeric. FAC |
Cloth of such description as may from time to time be specified by notification in the Gazette costing less per yard than Rs. 3/ or such other sum as may be specified. FAC |
21A. Knitting wool. FAC |
" Section 6 of the Bengal Act after its extension to Delhi, as modified by the said Notification, reads thus : "6(1)No tax shall be payable under this Act on the sale of goods specified in the first column of the Schedule subject to the conditions and exceptions if any set out in the corresponding entry in the second c... |
(2) The State Government after giving by Notification in the official Gazette not less than 3 months ' notice of its intention so to do may by like notification 790 add to or omit from or otherwise amend the Schedule and thereupon the Schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly." (emphasis supplied) STA |
By a Notification, dated 1 1 1951, in sub section (1) of section 6, the words "the first column of" were omitted and for the words "in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof" the word "therein" was substituted. FAC |
By a notification country liquor was included in the Schedule as item No. 40 of exempted goods with effect from 19 1 1952. FAC |
On 1 11 1956, as a result of the coming into force of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, and the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, Part States were abolished. FAC |
Part State of Delhi became a Union Territory and the Delhi Legislative Assembly, was also abolished. FAC |
In 1956, Part State (Laws) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Laws Act) also became me , with necessary adaptations. FAC |
On 1 12 1956, Parliament passed the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Delhi Amendment) Act 1956 which introduced amendments in different sections of the Bengal Act as applicable to Delhi. FAC |
It made only two changes in section 6 Firstly, the word 'Schedule ', wherever it occurred, was replaced by the words "Second Schedule". FAC |
Secondly the words "Central Government" were substituted for the words "State Government". FAC |
On December 7, 1951, in the Gazette of India Extraordinary there appeared a notifications which reads as below: "S.R.O. 3908 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 2 of the (30 of 1950), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of... |
The vires of this notification dated 7 12 1957, is me subject of primary challenge in these appeals (hereinafter it will be referred to as the impugned notification). FAC |
791 Item 17 in the Second Schedule of the Bengal Act was amended with effect from December 14, 1957 by Notification No. SRO 3958, as under : "17. All varieties of cotton, woollen, rayon or artificial silk fabric but not including real silk fabrics". STA |
"Conditions subject to which tax shall not be payable: In respect of tobacco cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics and woollen fabrics as defined in item 9, 12, 12A, 12B at the First Schedule to the (I of 1944) included in entries (a) and (c) above, no tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941, shall... |
The aforesaid condition was withdrawn by Notification No. GSR 203, dated 1 4 1958. FAC |
By Notification No. GSR 202, dated 1 4 1958, the Central Government withdrew the exemption of country liquor from tax by omitting item No. 40 from the Second Schedule. FAC |
By Notification No. GSR 1076 dated 19 9 1959, the Central Government withdrew the exemption from tax of Items, 8, 11, 14 and 21A by omitting them from the Second Schedule with effect from 1 10 1959. FAC |
On 1 10 1959, the Bengal (Sales Tax Delhi Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act XX of 1959) came into force whereby Parliament made some amendments in different sections of the Bengal Act but left section 6 untouched. FAC |
By a Notification No. GSR 964 dated 16 6 1966, notice was given that item 17 of the Second Schedule would be substituted with effect from 1 7 1966, as follows: "Item 17 All varieties, cotton, woollen, nylon, rayon, pure silk or artificial silk fabrics but excluding Durries, Druggets and carpets". FAC |
The proposed amendment was given effect to from 1 7 1966, by Notification No. GSR 1061 dated 29 6 66. FAC |
One result of this amendment was that exemption of Durries from tax was withdrawn, while, such exemption was among others, extended to 'pure silk '. FAC |
By a Notification GSR 1038, dated 14 7 1970, notice was given that item 17 in the Second Schedule would be substituted with effect from 1 8 1970, as follows: "17.All varieties of cotton fabrics, rayon, or artificial silk fabrics and woollen fabrics but not including Durries, Druggets and carpets". FAC |
792 Such substitution of item 17 was made with effect from 1 8 70 by Notification GSR 1119 dated 31 7 1970. FAC |
one result of this notification was that the exemption of 'pure silk ' from tax was withdrawn. FAC |
The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2221 of 1972 are dealers in durries. FAC |
They feel aggrieved by the Notification GSR 1061 dated 29 6 1966 whereby exemption of Durries from sales tax was withdrawn. FAC |
The appellants in Civil Appeals 2222, 2223 and 2225 of 1972 deal in knitting wool. FAC |
Their cause of action arose when exemption of knitting wool was withdrawn by Notification dated 19 9 1959, w.e.f. 1 10 1959. FAC |
The appellants in Civil Appeals 2524 of 1972 deal inter alia in pure silk. FAC |
They are aggrieved by Notification, dated 31 7 1970 by which exemption of 'pure silk ' was withdrawn w.e.f. 1 8 1970. FAC |
The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2224 of 1972 is a Kiryana dealer. FAC |
He feels aggrieved by the Notification dated 19 9 1959 whereby items 8, 11 and 14 were deleted from the Second Schedule with effect from 1 10 1959. FAC |
The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1801 of 1972 are licensed vendors of country liquor. FAC |
They feel adversely affected by Notification GSR 1076, dated 19 9 1959 whereby exemption of country liquor from tax was withdrawn with effect from 1 10 1959. FAC |
Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court to question the validity of the Government action withdrawing the exemptions with notice far less than three months. FAC |
A learned Judge of the High Court allowed eight of these petitions by a common judgment recorded in Civil Writ 574 D of 1966, Lachmi Narain vs Union of India and others. FAC |
Against that judgment, the Revenue carried appeals under Clause 10 of the. , to a Bench of the High Court. FAC |
In the meanwhile more writ petitions (C. Ws.593 to 652, 792 to 806 of 1971) were instituted in which the same question was involved. FAC |
The Division Bench, by a common judgment, allowed the appeals and dismissed the writ petitions. RLC |
The writ petitioners have now come in appeal to this Court on the basis of a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. FAC |
In the High Court the validity of the withdrawal of the exemptions was challenged on these grounds : (I) The power given by section 2 of the Laws Act to the Central Government to extend enactments in force in a State to a Union Territory with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, could be exercised only... |
The modification in section 6(2) of the BengaI Act made by SRO 3908, dated 793 7 10 1957, was not necessitated by this reason. FAC |
It was therefore, ultra vires section 2 of the Laws Act; (2) Such a modification could be made only once when the Bengal Act was extended to Delhi in 1951. FAC |
No modification could be made after such extension. FAC |
(3) The modification could not change the policy of the legislature reflected in the Bengal Act. FAC |
The impugned modification was contrary to it, and (4) The modifications giving notice to withdraw the exemptions and the notifications issued pursuant thereto withdrawing the exemptions from sales tax with respect to Durries, Ghee, (and other items relevant to these petitions) were void as the statutory notice of not l... |
Finding on all the four grounds in favour of the writ petitioners, lie learned Single Judge declared "that the purported modification of section 6(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 by the Government of India 's notification No. SRO 3908, dated 7th December, 1957, was ineffective and section 6(2) continues t... |
In consequence he quashed the Government notifications GSR 964, dated 16 6 1966 and GSR 1061 dated 29 6 1966 because they were not in compliance with the requirement of section 6(2) of the Bengal Act. FAC |
The contentions canvassed before the learned Single Judge were repeated before the appellate Bench of the High Court. FAC |
The Bench did not pointedly examine the scope of the power of modification given to the Central Government by section 2 of the Laws Act with specific reference to the purpose for which it was conferred and its precise limitations. FAC |
It did not squarely dispel the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the power of modification is an integral part of the power of extension and "cannot therefore be exercised except for the purpose of the extension". FAC |
It refused to accept that reasoning with the summary remark "from the extracts quoted by the learned Single Judge from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: Delhi Laws Act and from the Judgment in Rajnarain Singh vs The Chairman Patna Administration Committee Patna and Anr, the principle deduced by the learned Judge... |
We are therefore not inclined, as at present advised to support the above observations". FAC |
The Bench however hastened to add : "However, since the matter was not argued at great length and the appellants ' Counsel rested his submissions on the other aspects of the case, we would not like to express 794 any definite opinion on the question as to whether the power of making any modifications or restrictions in... |
" Seeking support from the observations of this Court in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Municipal Board, Rampur,(1) the Bench held that what is mandatory in section 6(2) is the requirement as to the giving of reasonable notice of the Government 's intention t(! amend the second Schedule, for the information of the publi... |
The Bench found that since the withdrawals of the exemptions in question, had been made after reasonable notice, the same were not invalid. FAC |
However, the main ground on which the decision of the Bench rests is that the infirmity, if any, in the impugned notification dated 7 12 1957, had been cured and rectified when "Parliament while enacting the Amendment Act, 1959 (Act No. '70 of 1959) put its seal of approval to the curtailed period of notice. FAC |
As such the curtailed period of notice shall be taken to have been provided by Parliament on the ratio of Supreme Court 's decision in Venkatrao Esajirao limberkar 's case". FAC |
Apart from the grounds taken in their writ petitions, the learned Counsel for the appellants have tried to raise before us another ground under the garb of what they styled. FAC |
as merely an additional argument". FAC |
They now seek to challenge the vires of the Notification SRO 615, dated the 28th April, 1951 in so far as it relates to the insertion in sub section (2) of section 6 of that Act, between the words "add to" and "the Schedule", of the words "or omit or otherwise amend". Ratio |
It is argued that this insertion was beyond the power of modification conferred on the Central Government by section 2 of the Laws Act. ARG |
The point sought to be made out is that if the insertion made by the Notification dated 28 4 1951, in sec.6(2) was ineffective and non est in the eye of law, the Central Government would have no power to "omit" anything from the exempted goods itemised in the Schedule. ARG |
It is argued that under section 6(2) sans this insertion, the Central Government was empowered only to "add to" and not "omit" from the exempted items enumerated in the Schedule, and consequently, the withdrawal of the exemptions in question was ultra vires the Central Government. ARG |
The entertainment of this Plea at this stage is stoutly opposed by Shri B. Sen, learned Counsel for the Revenue. ARG |
We are not inclined to permit the appellants to add to the list of impugned Notifications, now in section appeal. Ratio |
In their writ petitions, the appellants did not challenge the validity of the Notification dated 28 4 51. Ratio |
They never raised this point before the learned 795 Single Judge. Ratio |
Of course, before the appellate Bench, an argument was addressed on this point, but it does not appear to have been pressed. Ratio |
The Bench noted: "In the present appeal, the Bengal Act as extended by SRO 615, dated the 28th April 1951, did not suffer from any infirmity. Ratio |
It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Central Government at the time it extended e the Bengal Act, was competent to introduce such modification and restrictions as it thought fit. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.