Retrospective restriction on incidents of ownership upheld as reasonable regulation, not compensable deprivation of property.

Retrospective curtailment of a purchaser's right to annul under-tenures and eject under-tenants was held to be a reasonable restriction on the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f), because it regulated incidents of ownership in the public interest while preserving title and substituting tenant-protective benefits. The same amendment was also held not to amount to a taking or acquisition of property under Article 31(2), since it did not transfer title or take possession, but only limited one incident of ownership; at most, it operated as deprivation by authority of law under Article 31(1).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 7 of the West Bengal Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950, retrospectively restricting the purchaser's right to annul under-tenures and eject under-tenants imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) read with Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the same provision amounted to a deprivation of property requiring compliance with Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether section 7 of the West Bengal Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950, retrospectively restricting the purchaser's right to annul under-tenures and eject under-tenants imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) read with Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) was treated as the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property, not as a guarantee of immunity against every change in the incidents of a particular property. On that approach, the impugned law was examined for reasonableness under Article 19(5). The retrospective amendment was enacted to curb large-scale eviction, enlarged tenant protection, and preserved the purchaser's ownership while substituting compensating advantages, including enhanced rent in the enlarged class of protected tenancies. In that setting, the restriction was held to fall within the permissible area of social regulation in the interests of the general public.

Conclusion: The restriction was reasonable and valid under Article 19(5); the challenge under Article 19(1)(f) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the same provision amounted to a deprivation of property requiring compliance with Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned provision did not transfer title in the property or take possession of the estate itself. It only curtailed one incident of ownership, namely, the right to annul certain under-tenures and eject under-tenants. The Court held that Article 31(2) was concerned with such acquisition or taking possession as amounts to a substantial deprivation of property, and that the present abridgement did not rise to that level. At most, the law effected a deprivation by authority of law within Article 31(1), and not a taking or acquisition attracting compensation under Article 31(2).

Conclusion: The provision did not violate Article 31(2) and did not require compensation under that clause.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to section 7 failed, and the State's appeal succeeded because the impugned amendment was held to be within constitutional limits.

Ratio Decidendi: A law that retrospectively curtails an incident of ownership without transferring title or taking possession does not necessarily amount to a compensable taking under Article 31(2); if the restriction merely regulates the exercise of property rights in the public interest, it is valid if reasonable under Article 19(5).

---