M.B. Sharma, J. - (1.) Though the above numbered 10 writ petitions are in respect of acquisition of agricultural lands by the Erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Hindaun, now Municipal Board Hindaun after abolition of the Improvement Trust and the last two writ petitions No. 11 and 12 are in respect of acquisition of agricultural lands by Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, but because in each of the above numbered writ petitions, the question is as to whether by extension to the State of Rajasthan of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (for short, the Central Act) with effect from September 24, 1984 vide Section 2 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act 1984) (Act No. 68/84) (for short, the Amendment Act of 1984), the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short, the UIT Act) stands repealed, and if so, what is its effect. If the UIT Act stands repealed then whether the acquisition proceedings shall be continued and possession, if any, can only be taken under the provisions of the Central Act. Therefore, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The subject matters in respect of which the Parliament and the State have powers to make laws are enumerated in List I (Union List); List II, (State List) and List III, (Concurrent list) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Parliament has exclusive power to make laws in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List 1 and the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 11. Both the Parliament and the State Legislature have powers to make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the concurrent list. So far as any territory of India not included in the State is concerned notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List, the Parliament has power to make laws. The residue power to legislate by virtue of Article 248 of the Constitution vested in Parliament and it has exclusive powers to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent list or State List. We need not deal with the other Articles which also deal with the legislative powers of the Parliament and go straight away to Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The said Article can only be attracted in case the law has been made with respect to the matters contained in the Concurrent List (List III). Under clause (1) of the aforesaid Article if any provision of law made by Legislature of the State is repugnant to any provision of law made by Parliament, which Parliament is competent to enact or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State, to the extent of the repugnancy, be viod. But under clause (2) of Article 254 even if the law made by Legislature of the State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or any existing law with respect to that matter, then, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, it shall prevail in that State and the law made by Parliament shall not prevail. But under the proviso to clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, a power is vested in the Parliament and it can enact at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law made by the Legislature of the State.
(3.) A controversy has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the UIT Act was enacted by the State Legislature with respect to a matter enumerated in entry (5) of the State List and as far as its chapter (VII) and more so its Sections 52(2) to 59 are concerned, they too were not enacted with respect to a matter enumerated in entry 42 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and at best the said provisions can be said to have been made in exercise of incidental powers which a Legislature has while enacting law within a sphere assigned to it under the various Lists of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand is that so far as 'Acquisition and Requisition of property' matter contained in entry 42 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is concerned, it is a specific entry and such matter cannot be an incidental matter and while making law with respect to those matters under the State List, the State Legislature cannot encroach and cannot make laws in respect of the said entry.;