Petitioner – State Of West Bengal
Respondent – Union of India
Decided on :21 December 1962
Statues Referred –
- The Constitution of India
- Code of civil procedure
- Special Relief Act
- Transfer of property act
Cases Referred-
- Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras
- In Director of Rationing and Distribution v. The Corporation of Calcutta
Facts-
1.This is a case by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India for a pronouncement that Parliament is not capable to make a law approving the Union Government to obtain land and rights in or over land, which are conferred in a State, and that the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957)-
2)Which will be mentioned to as the Act-enacted by the Legislature, and mainly ss. 4 and 7 thereof, were ultra vires the lawmaking capability of Parliament, as also for an injunction preventing the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of these sections of the Act in respect of the coal manner lands conferred in the plaintiff.
3) The Plaint is created on the following accusations. The plaintiff is a State, specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution, as making part of India’ which is a Union of States.
4) By virtue of Art. 294 of the Constitution, all property and assets in West Bengal, which were conferred in His Glory for the purposes of the State Of West Bengal vs. Union of India .
5) Government of the Province of Bengal developed vested in the State of West Bengal for the determination of the State.
6) The State of West Bengal, in exercise of its exclusive lawmaking powers, passed the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 (W. B. 1 of 1954). By announcement issued under the Act, as amended, all estates and rights of mediators and Rights vested in the State for the purposes of Government, free from hindrances, together with rights in the sub-soil, with mines and minerals.
7) The Parliament passed the questioned Act allowing the Union of India to acquire any land or any right in or over land, in any part of India. In exercise of its powers under the Act, the Union of India, by two notices dated September 21, 1959 and January 8, 1960, has spoken its purpose to view for coal lying within the lands which are conferred in the plaintiff, as aforementioned. Arguments and differences have arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the capability of Parliament to pass the Act and its power to obtain the property of the plaintiff, which is a sovereign power.
Issue-
(1) Whether Parliament has legislative capability to pass a law for obligatory acquisition by the Union of land and other properties conferred in or owned by the State?
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get any relief?
Contention
Petitioners Arguments
- State sovereignty –Constitution being federal, the state share part in the sovereignty, legislature cannot take away these State Rights.
- Govt of India Act 1935, the property acquirement was envisioned through negotiation
- If supremacy be exercised by the Union to obtain state property under Access 42 of Concurrent List, similar authority may be exercised by the states in respect of such property and even to reobtain the property from the union. The power of under entry 42 will consequently never be efficiently exercised.
- It could not have been the purpose of the constitution creators to talk to expert upon parliament to legislate for obtaining property of states and thus to make the rights of the state property possessed by it more unwarranted
Respondent’s Arguments
1.The contention by referring to the American Constitution that doesn’t contain any express provisions but has a rich tradition of judicial practice that has upheld the power of the Federation to make laws that have a ‘direct impact’ upon the State’s right to property.
2. It further points out that the distribution of powers between the Centre and the States is based on the relationship between the Centre and the States under the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. It accomplishes by saying that the selected control of the Parliament to make laws with respect to mine will be almost unsuccessful if it is disempowered to legislate in a way that affects property conferred in States.
Judgment-
The apex court held the following:
1) The Indian Constitution confesses the central idea and assigns the independent powers between the co- ordinate constitutional enables, exactly, the Union and the States.
2) This idea suggests that one cannot intrude upon the governmental purposes or instrumentalities of the other, except the Constitution specifically provides for such interference.
3)The parliamentary fields chosen to the components cover subjects for lawmaking and they do not deal with the association between the two co-ordinate units operative in their allotted fields this is regulated by other provisions of the Constitution and there is no provision which enables one unit to take away the property of another but by agreement.
4) The future constancy of our vast country with its unity in variety depends upon the strict devotion of the federal belief, which the fathers of our Constitution have so intelligently and foresightedly combined therein. This Court has the constitutional power and the correlative duty-a difficult and delicate one to stop infringement, either openly or secretly, by the Union of State field or vice-versa, and therefore uphold the balance of federation.
5) The current is a characteristic case where the Court should stop the Union from exceeding its boundary and intruding into the State field and would consequently, hold that the questioned Act, in so far as it deliberates a power on the Union to obtain the lands owned by the State, including coal mines and coal bearing lands, is ultra vires.
6) By the above mentioned directions the appeal is dismissed, In view of the decision of the majority, the suit stands dismissed with cost.
Rule of law– The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble apex court of India was the Centre possessed the requisite powers to acquire properties belonging to States.
Conclusion
The mainstream decision of this case decided that the construction of the Indian Union as provided by the Constitution is federal, with the States inhabiting a subordinate position.
