TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and its amending provisions were unconstitutional under Article 31 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the declarations under sections 5 and 6 of the Act that the tenant had not occupied the premises and that the premises had become vacant were open to judicial review; (iii) whether the expression "or otherwise" in the Explanation to section 6 was limited by ejusdem generis and whether the order was unenforceable for being addressed to a dead person.
Issue (i): Whether the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and its amending provisions were unconstitutional under Article 31 of the Constitution.
Analysis: The Act was an existing law protected by Article 31(5)(a). Its original validity was not affected merely because the amended language expressly referred to public purpose. The amendments made in 1950 were treated as explanatory or extending measures and not as new post-Constitution legislation requiring separate presidential assent. The earlier constitutional ruling upholding the Act also controlled the challenge on Article 31.
Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutionality of the Act failed and was against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the declarations under sections 5 and 6 of the Act that the tenant had not occupied the premises and that the premises had become vacant were open to judicial review.
Analysis: The statutory scheme made the Government's declarations conclusive evidence on the questions of actual residence and vacancy. Those matters were not collateral jurisdictional facts available for reopening in writ or appellate proceedings. While constitutional courts could examine compliance with the statute, they could not re-try the factual findings expressly made conclusive by the legislature.
Conclusion: The findings of vacancy and non-residence were not open to reconsideration and the contention failed against the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the expression "or otherwise" in the Explanation to section 6 was limited by ejusdem generis and whether the order was unenforceable for being addressed to a dead person.
Analysis: The words "or otherwise" were used in an expansive sense and not as words of limitation. The context and object of the Act showed that the legislature intended to cover all modes by which occupation could cease, not merely cases similar to termination, eviction, assignment, or transfer. The omission to strike out the name of the deceased tenant did not invalidate the requisition order, because service on the affected person was otherwise achieved and the Act itself provided that irregularity in service would not affect validity.
Conclusion: The petitioner's construction of section 6 was rejected and the order was held enforceable.
Final Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed because the Act was valid, the statutory findings were conclusive, and the requisition order was not invalid on the grounds urged.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes specified administrative findings conclusive evidence, constitutional courts may test legal compliance but cannot reopen those findings on their merits; statutory words of extension such as "or otherwise" are given their plain expansive meaning when the legislative context so requires.
TaxTMI 
