State of West Bengal V. UOI summary

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DECEMBER 21, 1962

CASE ON FEDERALISM

Facts of the case : 

The parliament under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, by two notifications dated September 21, 1959 and January 8, 1960 intended to acquire the mining land that was under the control of state of West Bengal. Resenting the above order, government of West Bengal filled the case in Supreme Court of India. 

Contention of the parties :

Plaintiff : It was argued that the land which the central government intended to acquire is the property of West Bengal under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 and thus the union of india does not have any right to take over the property of the state that is sovereign.

Defendant : It wad argued that UOI can acquire any land within the geographical boundary of India which is necessary for the growth and development of the country. Moreover the parliament has the power to pass the legislation for the same. 

Question before the court

  1. Whether the parliament has right to pass any such legislation under which the property of the state can be compulsorily acquired. 
  2. Whether the state is sovereign in nature, and if yes then do the parliament have competency to enact any such legislation as mentioned

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court in this case by majority decided that the above legislation passed by the parliament is completely valid. UOI can compulsorily acquire even the state property under entry 42 of list III of seventh schedule. The court further observed that Constitution of India is the not truly federal and the states are not completely sovereign. As in the distribution of power, the state government has the legislation only on the affairs related to the local problems and the residue power especially for the industrialisation and commercial activity lies with parliament to legislate on. 
Moreover the court observed, Article 294 vests the property in state and Articles 298 authorises the state to tranfer property. It is nowhere mention that UOI cannot acquire properties of the state. Therefore as to the conclusion, as if the properties can be transfer, then can also be acquired. 


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more