SONAPUR TEA CO LIMITED MST MAZIRUNNESSA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on
April 04,1961
SONAPUR TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MAZIRUNNESSA
Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COMPANYLLECTOR OF KAMRUP,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAGHUBIR SINGH GAJADHAR GAJINDER SINGH SHIV SINGH RAGHBIR SINGH CHANDER SEN SINGH VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH SAWAI SINGH GIRDHAR SINGH FATEHPAL SINGH RAO GANPATI SINGH RUP SINGHJI HANUMANDASJI UGRA SEN AMAR SINGHJI ANAND BEHARI SINGH MADHO VS. STATE OF AJMER [RELIED ON]RAM RAM NARAIN MEDHI BHASKAR VINAYAK TENDULKAR PANDURANG GANPAT RAMCHANDRA LAXMAN BALWANT OAK KUBERDAS HARGOVINDDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [RELIED ON]
ATMA RAM AMIN CHAND JISUKH RAM S B S AMARSURJIT SINGH GANGA RAM GANGA SINGH JAGADISH MOTA BASTI BRIJ LAL GANPAT TH HARNATH SINGH MANI RAM SHRI HANUMAN PRASAD SANTA SINGH RAJA RAM LALA BALRAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
LAKSHIMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL OF VOLVOI, PONDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1979-4-21] [REFERRED]WIRE NETTING STORES DELHI VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-1981-5-49] [REFERRED]
NIJALINGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. TULUNADU FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENTS LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1965-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUKARAM BHARDWAJ AND MEENAKSHI KUMARI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2002-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH MAJOR NOW LT COL MICHEAL A R SKINNER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1964-8-6] [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS GOLU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1990-7-31] [RELIED ON]
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1991-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
SUKAPURAM SABHAYOGAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1962-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
CH. BISHAN DASS AND ORS. VS. THE GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1968-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ABRAHAM PATANI OF MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
LANJAPALLI VENKANNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2008-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
GULABBHAI VALLABHBHAI DESAI VS. H A KHAN, COLLECTOR OF DAMAN [LAWS(BOM)-1969-10-19] [REFERRED]
JOKAI INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1990-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-1965-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
JIBAN CHANDRA SARMA AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1965-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH SHIAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1962-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS [LAWS(SC)-1971-10-48] [RELIED ON]
UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU SMT LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL VS. LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL:UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1990-7-2] [DISTINGUISHED]
LANJAPALLI VENKANNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2008-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)These two appears arise out of two writ petitions Nos. 138 and 139 of 1958 filed respectively by the two appellants, Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd., of 15-D Sambhunath Pandi Street, Calcutta-9, and Musst. Mazirunnessa, wife of Abdul Gafur of Village Bhoknamari, District Kamrup, in which they challenged the validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act I of 1957 (hereafter called the Act). The said writ petitions have been dismissed by the Assam High Court substantially on the ground that since the impugned Act falls within the protection of Art. 31A the challenge made by the two appellants to the several provisions of the Act under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 (2) cannot be entertained. Having dismissed the writ petitions principally on this ground the High Court granted certificates to both the appellants to come to this Court in appeal, and so it is with the said certificates that the two appeals have been brought to this Court.
(2.)It is not necessary to set out the material facts leading to the two writ petitions in any detail. It would be enough to say that under S. 5 of the impugned Act notices had been served on both the appellants by the respondent Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Kamrup calling upon them to submit a return giving the particulars of all their lands in the prescribed form and stating therein their selection of plots of land (not exceeding in the aggregate the limits fixed under S. 4) which they desired to retain under the provisions of the Act. The appellants contended before the High Court that the impugned Act under which this notice had been served on them was invalid and ultra vires and so they wanted the notice issued under S. 5 to be quashed. That is the only relevant fact which needs to be stated for deciding the present appeals.
(3.)The Act received the assent of the President on December 7, 1956, and was published in the official State Gazette on January 16, 1957. Subsequently it was amended by the amending Act XVII of 1957 and assent was obtained to the amendment thus made on November 8, 1957. By a notification issued by the State Government on February 7,1958, the amended Act came into force on February 15, 1958.
(2.)It is not necessary to set out the material facts leading to the two writ petitions in any detail. It would be enough to say that under S. 5 of the impugned Act notices had been served on both the appellants by the respondent Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Kamrup calling upon them to submit a return giving the particulars of all their lands in the prescribed form and stating therein their selection of plots of land (not exceeding in the aggregate the limits fixed under S. 4) which they desired to retain under the provisions of the Act. The appellants contended before the High Court that the impugned Act under which this notice had been served on them was invalid and ultra vires and so they wanted the notice issued under S. 5 to be quashed. That is the only relevant fact which needs to be stated for deciding the present appeals.
(3.)The Act received the assent of the President on December 7, 1956, and was published in the official State Gazette on January 16, 1957. Subsequently it was amended by the amending Act XVII of 1957 and assent was obtained to the amendment thus made on November 8, 1957. By a notification issued by the State Government on February 7,1958, the amended Act came into force on February 15, 1958.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.