Acquisition of undertakings under Entry 42 of List III can validly override post-notification transfers and valuation objections.

Acquisition of sugar undertakings was treated as a distinct legislative field under Entry 42 of List III, separate from industrial regulation under Entries 52 of List I and 24 of List II. On that basis, the commentary states that a State law can validly acquire an undertaking as a going concern. It also notes that statutory language may validly include distilleries within the scheduled undertaking and nullify transfers made after a specified date through retrospective vesting and consequence clauses. The discussion further records that compensation, retrospective operation and book-value valuation were upheld as constitutionally and statutorily sustainable on the facts described.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Legislature had competence to enact a law for acquisition of sugar undertakings and whether such acquisition fell within Entry 42 of List III or was displaced by Entry 52 of List I or Entry 24 of List II; (ii) whether the impugned Act could validly include distilleries and annul transfers made after 29 October 1978 by Section 4(4)(ii)(e); (iii) whether the challenge based on absence of compensation, arbitrariness, retrospective operation and alleged invalidity of valuation on book value could succeed.

Issue (i): Whether the State Legislature had competence to enact a law for acquisition of sugar undertakings and whether such acquisition fell within Entry 42 of List III or was displaced by Entry 52 of List I or Entry 24 of List II.

Analysis: The power to acquire property was treated as a distinct legislative field under Entry 42 of List III and not as an incident of the power to legislate on industries under the other entries. The earlier decisions relied upon by the Court had already recognised that acquisition of an undertaking is not the same as control or regulation of an industry. The subject of acquisition remained separate from the subject of industries, and the mere fact that sugar undertakings or distilleries were involved did not carry the matter into Entry 52 of List I or Entry 24 of List II.

Conclusion: The challenge to legislative competence failed and the acquisition law was upheld as within the State's power.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned Act could validly include distilleries and annul transfers made after 29 October 1978 by Section 4(4)(ii)(e).

Analysis: The Court treated the definition of scheduled undertaking, together with the vesting and consequence clauses, as covering the distillery where the statutory language showed an intention to acquire the whole undertaking and to nullify post-29 October 1978 alienations. Section 4(4)(ii)(e) was read as an independent provision that invalidated transfers and dispositions made after the specified date and enabled the Collector to take possession of the properties as part of the undertaking. On that construction, the distillery was not outside the sweep of the Act merely because it had been transferred to a third party before the appointed day.

Conclusion: The distillery was held to be covered by the Act and the challenge to the retrospective annulment of transfers failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the challenge based on absence of compensation, arbitrariness, retrospective operation and alleged invalidity of valuation on book value could succeed.

Analysis: The Court held that compensation was provided by the Act and that the fact that the provision did not name every affected claimant did not mean no compensation mechanism existed. The retrospective sweep of the Act was not treated as unconstitutional in the circumstances, particularly because the transfer relied on by the petitioners had occurred after the critical date fixed by the statute. The attack based on bona fide purchase, Article 14 and alleged confiscatory effect was rejected because the impugned measure was one of acquisition, not pre-emptive purchase, and the book-value method was only one recognised mode of valuation. No material was shown to establish that the adopted method was unreasonable.

Conclusion: These constitutional and valuation-based challenges were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the acquisition scheme were dismissed, the transfer cases became infructuous, and the contempt proceedings failed for want of wilful disobedience.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional power of acquisition under Entry 42 of List III is an and plenary power that includes acquisition of an undertaking as a going concern, and a statute may validly operate retrospectively to nullify post-notification transfers of property forming part of that undertaking.

---