Unguided discretion over vacant land was held arbitrary, while legislative competence and the Article 31 challenge were rejected.

A statutory scheme that gave the authorities uncontrolled discretion to identify and deal with vacant land, without notice, hearing, guiding policy or rational criteria, was held arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14, and also inconsistent with Article 19(1)(f) while that right remained in force. The challenge under Article 31 failed because the law did not transfer ownership or possession to the State and was not acquisition or requisition in substance. Legislative competence was upheld, as the subject matter fell within the State List. The enactment was therefore struck down principally for arbitrariness and discrimination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the definition of vacant land and the allied provisions conferred arbitrary and unguided power, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution; (ii) whether the Act amounted to acquisition or requisition so as to attract Article 31 and fail for want of compensation or assent; and (iii) whether the State Legislature had competence to enact the legislation.

Issue (i): Whether the definition of vacant land and the allied provisions conferred arbitrary and unguided power, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The definition of vacant land enabled the Competent Authority and the State Government to pick and choose lands without any guiding policy, procedural safeguard, notice, hearing, or rational criteria. The definition treated unlike situations alike, included lands unrelated to the stated object, and left the exercise of power wholly uncontrolled. The Court held that the vice of arbitrariness struck at the root of the definition and the cognate provisions.

Conclusion: The provisions were held violative of Article 14, and also inconsistent with Article 19(1)(f) for the period when that right remained in force.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act amounted to acquisition or requisition so as to attract Article 31 and fail for want of compensation or assent.

Analysis: The Act did not transfer ownership or possession to the State, nor did it vest in the State any right to exploit the land as owner or occupier. It therefore could not be characterised as acquisition or requisition within the meaning of Article 31. The absence of compensation or presidential assent did not invalidate the Act on that footing.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 31 failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the State Legislature had competence to enact the legislation.

Analysis: The subject matter of the enactment fell within the legislative field of the State, and the Court accepted the High Court's view that the Legislature was competent under the relevant entries in List II.

Conclusion: The State Legislature had competence to enact the law.

Final Conclusion: The enactment failed primarily on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness under Article 14, so the High Court's decision striking it down was affirmed and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory scheme conferring unguided discretion to classify, declare, and deal with private property without notice, hearing, or rational criteria is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14, even if the legislature has competence to enact the subject-matter.

---