Presidential assent under Article 31(3) was procedural only; the development statute remained valid and traceable to Entry 5 of List II.

Article 31(3) was treated as a post-enactment procedural requirement for State laws providing for compulsory acquisition or requisition of property, not a substantive bar that made a valid law void ab initio. A State enactment within legislative competence and otherwise consistent with Part III remained unenforceable until the constitutional impediment was removed; once Article 31(3) was repealed, Presidential assent was no longer required and the provisions became enforceable. On legislative competence, the Bangalore Development Authority Act was characterised in pith and substance as a development statute for planned development, with acquisition provisions only incidental. It was therefore traced to Entry 5 of List II, not Entry 42 of List III.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was void for want of reservation for Presidential consideration and Presidential assent under Article 31(3) of the Constitution; (ii) Whether the Act was a law traceable to Entry 5 of List II or Entry 42 of List III.

Issue (i): Whether the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was void for want of reservation for Presidential consideration and Presidential assent under Article 31(3) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 31(3) imposed a post-enactment procedural requirement for a State law providing for compulsory acquisition or requisition of property. It did not create a substantive constitutional prohibition comparable to Article 13(2). A law within legislative competence and otherwise not violative of Part III was not rendered void ab initio merely because the required assent had not yet been obtained. The effect of non-compliance was that the provisions remained unenforceable until the constitutional impediment was removed. Once Article 31(3) was repealed, the need for Presidential assent disappeared and the provisions became enforceable.

Conclusion: The Act was not unconstitutional or void on the ground of absence of Presidential assent; the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act was a law traceable to Entry 5 of List II or Entry 42 of List III.

Analysis: The Act was enacted for the establishment and development of the Bangalore Development Authority and the planned development of Bangalore and adjoining areas. Its acquisition provisions were merely incidental to that principal object. In pith and substance, the legislation fell within the State's power relating to local government under Entry 5 of List II. The acquisition machinery in Sections 35 and 36 did not convert it into a law primarily for acquisition or requisition of property under Entry 42 of List III.

Conclusion: The Act was correctly treated as a development statute under Entry 5 of List II; this contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the Act was rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A State enactment within legislative competence is not void ab initio for non-compliance with a procedural requirement of Presidential assent under Article 31(3); where the law's main object is development and acquisition is merely incidental, it is traceable to the development entry rather than the acquisition entry.

---