{"id":213774,"date":"1972-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972"},"modified":"2015-03-29T20:54:48","modified_gmt":"2015-03-29T15:24:48","slug":"hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972","title":{"rendered":"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2205, \t\t 1973 SCR (1) 515<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Ray, A.N., Dua, I.D. & Palekar, D.G., Khanna, Hans Raj Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHARI SINGH AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/05\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\nDUA, I.D.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 2205\t\t  1973 SCR  (1) 515\n 1972 SCC  (2) 239\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1972 SC2538\t (10)\n RF\t    1974 SC2009\t (5,6)\n RF\t    1975 SC1187\t (20)\n RF\t    1975 SC1389\t (23)\n R\t    1976 SC2250\t (23)\n R\t    1987 SC2310\t (14)\n RF\t    1988 SC 587\t (15)\n R\t    1989 SC 406\t (1,3,4,5,6,7)\n R\t    1991 SC 855\t (8,27)\n\n\nACT:\nPublic\tPremises (Eviction of Unauthorised  Occupants)\tAct,\n(15  of 1971), ss. 15 and 20-Validation of  eviction  orders\npassed under 1958 Act-If constitutionally valid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nWhen   the   Public  Premises  (Eviction   of\tUnauthorised\nOccupants)  Act, 1958, was in force, the Government had\t two\nalternative  remedies of eviction of persons in\t unauhorised\noccupation of public premises, namely, one in a court of law\nby instituting a suit for eviction, and the other, under  s.\n5(1) of the Act, which conferred power on the Estate Officer\nto make an order of eviction.\nOrders\twere passed under is. 5 in 1961 and  1964,  evicting\nthe  appellants,  and, writ petitions filed by them  in\t the\nHigh  Court  were dismissed.  While their  appeals  in\tthis\nCourt\twere  pending  the  Public  premises  (Eviction\t  of\nUnauthorised Occupant ) Act, 1971, came into force. repealed\nthe  1958-Act  and  had retrospective  operation  from\t16th\nSeptember,  1958.   Under it, there is\tonly  one  procedure\navailable for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation\nof public premises.  Its scheme is that it confers power  on\nthe  Estate Officer to issue notice to persons who,  are  in\nunauthorised occupation of any public premies to show  cause\nwhy  an\t order\tof eviction should not\tbe  made  and  after\nconsidering  the  grounds,  to pass an\torder  of  eviction.\n'Premises'  are defined to include any land or any  building\nor  part of a building.\t Section 20 provides  that  anything\ndone  or any action taken on purported to have been done  or\ntaken under the 1958-Act shall be deemed to be as valid\t and\neffective as if such thing or action was done or taken under\nthe  corresponding  provisions of the  1971-Act.   Also.  15\nprovides  a  bar  to  the  jurisdiction\t of  the  'court  to\nentertain a suit or proceeding in respect of eviction of any\nperson in unauthorised occupation of public premises.\nThe appellants challenged the constitutionality of the 1971-\nAct also in the appeals.\nDismissing the appeals,\nHELD:\t  (Per\tS. M. Sikri, C. J. J. M. Shelat, A. N.\tRay,\nI. D. Dua, D.  G.  Palekar and H. R. Khanna, JJ.) : (1)\t The\nvalidity  of  the 1971Act depends on,  (a)  the\t legislative\ncompetence  to validate anything done or action taken  under\nthe   1958-Act;\t (b)  whether  the   Legislature   possesses\ncompetence  over  the  subject matter; and  (c)\t whether  by\nvalidation the Legislature has removed the defect which\t the\nCourt had found in the previous law. [523 D; 527 E-F]\n(a)  In\t Northern  India Caterers Private Ltd. v.  State  of\nPunjab,<\/a> [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399 this Court held that s. 5 of the\nPunjab\tPremises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery)\tAct;\n1959,  was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution  on\t the\nground that, the section left it to the unguided  discretion\nof  the Collector to taken action either under the  ordinary\nlaw or follow the drastic procedure provided by the section.\nAssuming  that the 1958-Act is unconstitutional on the\tsame\nground it could not be contended that the 1971-Act could not\nvalidate anything done under\n516\nthe  1958-Act, because, the 1971-Act is effective from\t16th\nSeptember 1958, and provides that the action taken under the\n1958-Act  is deemed to be taken under the 1971-Act.   It  is\nnot  a case of the latter Act validating action taken  under\nthe  earlier Act, but a case where. by a deeming  provision.\nacts  or things done under an earlier Act were deemed to  be\ndone  under the latter validating, Act. [522 D-F; 524  E-F-;\n525 E-G]\nM\/s.  West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. v. State of\nMadras,<\/a> [1963] 2 S.C.R. 747, followed.\nDeputy\tCommissioner and Collector, Kamrup & Ors.  v.  Durga\nNath<\/a> sarma, [1968] 1 S.C.R. 1 S.C.R. 561, referred to.\n(b)  The Legislature bad legislative competence to enact the\n1971-Act  and  provide a, speedy procedure for\teviction  of\npersons in unauthorised occupation of public premises,,\t and\nto pass, the law with retrospective operation. [527 F-G]\n(c)  The  Legislature can put out of action  retrospectively\none  of the procedures leaving one procedure only  available\nand thus remove the vice of discrimination found in Northern\nIndia Caterers case. [526 E-G]\nState  of Mysore & Anr. v. D. Achiah Chetty<\/a> etc.,  [1963]  3\nS.C.P.. 55. followed.\nShri   Prithvi\t Cotton\t Milts\tLtd.   A  Anr.\t v.   Broach\nMunicipality & Ors.<\/a> [1970] 1 S.C.R. 388, referred to.\n(2)  Since  the\t word 'premises' means land  which  includes\nagricultural  land,  the appellant who was  in\tunauthorised\noccupation of agricultural land belonging to the Government,\nwas validly evicted under the Art.\n[528 A]\n(3)  A\tprocedure  for eviction may be available  under\t the\nPunjab Tenancy Act, 1887; but it could not, on that account,\nbe contended that the procedure under the 1971-Act  offended\nArt.  14.   The\t 1971-Act provides only\t one  procedure\t for\nejectment  of persons in unauthorised occupation  of  public\npremises,. and there is no vice of discrimination under\t it.\n[528 A-C]\nPer  M. H. Beg J. : (1) The Court had not declared any\tpart\nof  the\t 1958-Act  to be a void piece  of  legislation,\t and\ntherefore,   no\t question  of  applying\t Art.  141  of\t the\nConstitution arises because of the decision of this Court in\nNorthern  India\t Caterers Private Ltd. v. State\t of  Punjab,<\/a>\n[1967] 3 S.C.R. 399. [529 C]\n(2)  The assumption that the provisions of the 1958-Act were\nvoid  and that therefore action taken under it could not  be\nlegalised or validated is erroneous. [529 C-E]\nIn  the\t Northern  India Caterers case s. 5  of\t the  Punjab\nPublic\tPremises and Land (Eviction and Rent  Recovery)\t Act\n1959,  was held to be invalid because of the option left  to\nadopt  either  the  procedure  under  the  section`  or\t the\nprocedure under the ordinary law which lay outside the\tAct.\nThe defect or lacuna in the Punjab Act which invalidated the\nsection\t was that it did not contain a\tprohibition  against\nthe  alternative  procedure  and  not,\tthat  it   Contained\nsomething   which   was,   in\titself,\t  prohibited.\t The\nunconstitutionality  of the section thus really\t arose\tfrom\nmatters extraneous to the Act.\tThat case laid down  nothing\nmore  than that although the more drastic procedure  may  be\notherwise\n517\nvalid, yet it became unenforceable in the situation emerging\nfrom the totality of provisions of law considered  therein.\nthere  is nothing in the decision to justify the  view\tthat\nthe section was per se or ab initio void. [530 B-F]\n(3)  The  result of the 1971-Act is nothing short of it\t re-\nenactment retrospectively so that no ground is left open for\nthe argument that there is any possibility of discrimination\nbetween\t  different   unauthorised   occupants\t of   Public\npremisses.   Since the date from which the  1971-Act  became\napplicable the validity of any past action under the1958-\nAct will have to be adjudged in the light of the  provisions\nof the1971-Act.\t if  some  proceeding  taken  was   till\npending its correctnessand  validity would be governed\tby\nthe requirements laid down in the1971-Act,  because,   the\nproceeding taken under the 1958-Act would he deemed to be  a\nproceeding under the 1971-Act.\tThe rights protected by\t the\nprocedure  in the 1971-Act were not infringed by the  action\ntaken  under  the earlier Act, because,\t the  procedure\t for\neviction  including the right of appeal is  identical  under\nboth Acts. [530 G-14; 531 A-D]\n(4)Even\t if  it\t is  case of validation\t and  not  one\tof\nreenactment, in substance it also made invalid any possible\ndiscriminatory act which may have been committed during\t the\ncurrency of the 1958-Act. [531 D-E]\n(5)There  is  no  substance, in the  contention\t that  the\neffect of s. 20 of the 1971-Act was really to validate\twhat\nwas  merely 'purported to have been done in the\t past,,\t and\nthat  therefore, it could not be deemed to be  action  taken\nunder  the 1971-Act.  The Word 'purported' is used  only  to\ndescribe  or  identify\tthe  part  action  taken  under\t the\nrepalced Act and has no effect beyond that.  Therefore,\t the\naction\ttaken would now be deemed to have been\ttaken  under\nthe 1971 Act. [531 E-G]\n(6)If at all, the drastic procedure in 1958-Act was merely\nunder\ta  shadow,  or,\t in  a\tstate of   suspension\tor\nunenforceability due to reasons failing outside the Act; but\nonce those reasons were eliminated by the new enactment\t the\nshadow\tis  removed and the procedure became  operative\t and\neffective  retrospectively.  The effect of the 1971-Act\t was\nthat  the option to proceed to evict unauthorised  occupants\nin any way outside the Act was shut Out retrospectively\t and\nit was within the legislative competence of Parliament to do\nso  the action taken against the appellants is\tnot  invalid\nwhen tested by the provisions of 1971-Act.\n[532 A-D]\nKeshavan  Aladhava  Menon  v. The State\t of  Bombay,<\/a>  [195]1\nS,C.R. 228, Behram Khurshed Pesikaka V. the State of Bombay,\n[1055]\t1  S.C.R. 613, Saghir Ahmad v. The State of  U.P.  &\nOrt.<\/a>  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, Bhikaji Narain Dhakras & Ors.  v.\nThe  State  of M. P. & Ors., [1955] 2 S.C.R. 589, M.  P.  V.\nSundararamier  &  Co.  v. The State of A P.  &\tAnr.  [1958]\nS.C.P,. 1422 Deep Chand v. State of U.P. & Ors.<\/a> [1959] Supp.\n2 S.C.R. 8, Maheredra Lal jaini v. the State of U.P. & Ors.,\n[1961]\tSupp.\tI  S.C.R. 912, B Sharma\t Rao  v.  The  Union\nTerritory  of  Pondichary,<\/a>  [1967]  2  S.C.R.  650,   Deputy\nCommissioner  & CollectorKanpur & Ors. v. Durga Nath  Sarma.<\/a>\n[1968]\t1  S.  C. R. 561 an I P. Bhooma Reddy  v.  State  of\nMysore & Ors.,<\/a> [1969] 3 S.C.P,. 14 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE,  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal\tNo.  493  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated September 6,\t1966
\nof the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.  214of
\n1963 and Civil Appeal No. 1456 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
518<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated December 21,\t1967
\nof the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case\t No.
\n222 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
Rameshwar Dial, Sharda Rani and A. D. Mathur, for the appel-
\nlants (in C.A. No. 493 of 1967).\n<\/p>\n
K.K.  Sinha, S. K. Sinha, B. B. Sinha and S. K.\t Bisaria,
\nfor the appellants (in C.A. No. 1456 of 1967).
\nJagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India, L. M.  Singhvi,
\nP. Parameswara Rao and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 1 (in
\nboth the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
Ravinder  Narain,  Bhuvnesh Kumar,’ and A.  Subba  Rao,\t for
\nintervener No. 1 (in C.A. No. 493 of 1967).\n<\/p>\n
Soli Sorabjee, Lalit Bhasin, R. N. Banerjee, Ravinder Narain
\nand P. C. Bhartari, for intervener No. 2 (in C.A. No. 493 of
\n1967).\n<\/p>\n
R.K.  Garg  and S. C. Agarwal, for intervener No.  3  (in
\nC.A.  No. 493 of 1967) and the intervener (in C.A. No.\t1456
\nof 1968).\n<\/p>\n
A.K.  Sen, S. C. Majumdar and R. K. Jain, for intervener No.
\n4 (in C.A. No. 493 of 1967).<\/span>
\nThe  Judgment of SIKRI, C.J., SHELAT, RAY, DUA, PALEKAR\t and
\nKHANNA,\t JJ.  was delivered by RAY, J. BEG, J.\tdelivered  a
\nseparate concurring opinion.\n<\/p>\n
Ray,   J.   These   two\t appeals   raised   originally\t the
\nconstitutionality  .of\tthe Public  Premises  (Evict`ion  of
\nUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958.  The challenge was on the
\nground that section 5(1) of the 1958 Act violated Article 14
\nof  the\t Constitution.\t Section  5(1)\t,of  the  1958\t Act
\nconferred  power on the Estate Officer to make an  order  of
\neviction against persons who are in unauthorised  occupation
\nof public premises.  The vice of section 5 ( 1 ) of the\t 195
\n8 Act against Article 14 of the Constitution was this.\t The
\nGovernment  had\t two  alternative remedies  of\teviction  of
\npersons\t in  unauthorised occupation.  One was to  seek\t the
\nremedy in a court of law by instituting a suit for eviction.
\nThe  other  was the remedy prescribed by the 1958  Act.\t The
\n1958  Act  was\tattacked on the ground that  there  was\t the
\nunguided  discretion  of the authorities to  either  of\t the
\nremedies  and to pick and choose some of them in  occupation
\nof  public  premises  for the  application  of\tthe  drastic
\nprocedure under the 1958 Act.\n<\/p>\n
The 1958 Act was amended in 1968Z Section 10E was introduced
\ninto the 1958 Act.  Section 10E created bar of\tjurisdiction
\nof  civil  court  to entertain any  suit  or  proceeding  in
\nrespect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised
\noccupation of any public premises or the recovery of the  a-
\nrears  of  rent\t payable under section 7 ( 1  )\t or  damages
\npayable under section 7 (2) or costs ,awarded under  section
\n9(5) of the Act.  The appellants raised the
\n519<\/span>
\ncontention  that the amendment effected by section 1  OE  of
\nthe Act was not retrospective and therefore the\t proceedings
\nforming subject matter of the appeals were not saved by\t the
\namendment.\n<\/p>\n
In  the appeal filed by Hari Singh one Behari  Lal  obtained
\nlease  from  the  President  through  the  Military   Estate
\nOfficer,  Delhi\t Circle\t of 36.73 acres of  land  at  Ambala
\nCantonment.  The lease was for four years from 1 May,  1952.
\nThe  annual  rent was Rs. 3310\/-.  The rent was\t payable  in
\nadvance.   Behari Lal failed to payment.  The lease  expired
\non  1 May, 1957.  The period of the lease was not  extended.
\nBehari\tLal  failed to surrender possession.  There  was  an
\norder dated 17 June, 1960 under the 1958 Act for eviction of
\nBehari\tLa].   The appellants claimed to be  sub-lessees  of
\nBehari\tLal.  The lease permitted subletting only  with\t the
\npermission  of\tthe competent authority.  Notice  was  given
\nunder the 1958 Act to the appellants to show cause as to why
\nthey should not be evicted under the Act, because they\twere
\nin unauthorised occupation of the land.\t The Estate  Officer
\nfound that there was no sanction of the competent  authority
\npermitting sub-lease.  On 25 July, 1961 an order was  passed
\nunder  section\t5 of the 1958 Act evicting  the\t appellants.
\nThe  appellants preferred on appeal to the  District  Judge,
\nAmbala.\t  On  18  April,  1962\tthe  appeal  was  dismissed.
\nThereafter  the\t appellants  filed a writ  petition  in\t the
\nPunjab\tHigh Court.  The learned Single Judge dismissed\t the
\npetition on 13 May, 1963.  The appellants preferred  Letters
\nPatent\tappeal.\t  The High Court dismissed the appeal  on  5
\nSeptember, 1966.  The appeal filed by Hari Singh an,] others
\nis by certificate against the decision of the High Court  of
\nPunjab.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal filed by Bhartiya Hotel & Ors. is by\t certificate
\nagainst\t the  judgment dated 12 December, 1967 of  the\tHigh
\nCourt at Patna.\t The appellants there are partners  carrying
\non  business under the name of Bhartiya Hotel at  Ratanpura.
\nOne  of\t the partners obtained lease of a plot\tof  land  at
\nChapra\tin  Bihar.   Ram Lakhan Prasad is  the\tpartner\t who
\nobtained  the  lease.\tThe Estate  Officer,  North  Eastern
\nRailway\t served a notice dated 12 June, 1964  under  section
\n4(1)  of the 1959 Act on Ram Lakhan Prasad for\teviction  of
\nthe  appellants on the ground that the appellant,,  were  in
\nunauthorised  occupation.  The Estate Officer on  16  March,
\n1966  passed an order of eviction against  tile\t appellants.
\nThe appellants thereafter moved the High Court at Patna\t for
\ncluashing  the\torder  of eviction.  The High  Court  on  21
\nDecember,   1967   dismissed  the  writ\t petition   of\t the
\nappellants.  The appeal is by certificate from the  decision
\nof the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
In the appeal filed by Hari Singh and others two contentions
\nwere raised in the High Court.\tFirst. it was aid that\ttile
\nword   ‘premises’  did\tnot  apply  to\tagricultural   land.
\nSecondly, it was said
\n620<\/span>
\nthat  the  legislation on agricultural land was\t within\t the
\nexclusive  legislative, filed of the State, and,  therefore,
\nthe  Central  Act  was\tunconstitutional.   The\t High  Court
\nrejected both the contention.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t appeal\t filed\tby Bhartiya  Hotel  and\t others\t the
\nappellants raised the Principal contention that the 1958 Art
\nviolated  Article 14 of the, Constitution.  The\t High  Court
\nreferred  to  the decision of this Court in  Northern  India
\nCaterers  Private Ltd, & Anr. v. State of Punjab &  Anr.<\/a>(1).
\nThe  High  Court hold that the decision ,of  this  Court  in
\nNorthern  India\t Caterers Private Ltd,(1) case\twas  on\t the
\nPunjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery)
\nAct,  1959 and the provisions of the 1958 Act  which  formed
\nsubject\t matter\t of  the decision in the  Patna\t High  Court
\ncontained distinguishable, features,
\nIn this context the appellants raised the  constitutionality
\nof  the 1958 Act.  During the pendency of these appeals\t the
\nPublic\tPremises (Eviction of Unauthorised  Occupants)\tAct,
\n1971  received\tthe assent of the President  on\t 23  August,
\n1971.  The appellants were allowed to add a new ground.\t The
\nnew ground challenged constitutionality of the 1971 Act.
\nThe decision in the present appeals turns on the question as
\nto  whether the 1971 Act is a constitutionally valid  piece-
\nof  legislation.  ‘The 1971 Art is deemed to have come\tinto
\nforce  on 16 september. 1958 except sections 11, 19  and  20
\nwhich came into force on 23 August. 1971.  Section 11 of the
\n1971  Act speaks of offence under the Act.  The\t offence  is
\nthat  if  any person who has been evicted  from\t any  public
\npremises under this Act again occupied the premises  without
\nauthority  for such Occupation, he shall be Punishable\twith
\nimprisonment  for  a term which may extend to one  year,  or
\nwith  fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or\twith
\nboth.  Section 19 enacts that the 1958 Apt is repealed.\t The
\nmost important :section is 20.\tSection 20 is as follows :-
\n“Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,
\nanything done or any action taken (including rules or orders
\nmade, notices issued. evictions ordered or effected, damages
\nassessed,   rents   or\tdamages\t or  costs   recovered\t and
\nproceedings  initiated)\t or purported to have been  done  or
\ntaken  under the Public Premises (Eviction  of\tUnauthorised
\nOccupants)  Act. 1958 (hereinafter in this section  referred
\nto as  the 1958 Act) shall be deemed to be  as\tvalid  and
\neffective as if such thing or action was done or taken under
\nthe  corresponding provisions of this Act which, under\tsub-
\nsection (3) of
\nsection 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on the
\n16th  day of September, 1958 and accordingly[1967] 3  S.C.R.\n<\/p>\n
399.
\n521<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(a)  no\t suit or other legal proceeding shall  be  main.  or
\ncontinued in any court for the refund of any rent or damages
\nor costs recovered under the, 1958 Act where such refund has
\nbeen claimed merely on the ground that the said Act has been
\ndeclared to be, unconstitutional and void; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)no court shall enforce a decree or order directing  the
\nrefund of any rent or damages or costs recovered under\tthe
\n1958  Act  merely on the ground that the said Act  has\tbeen
\ndeclared so be unconstitutional and void.
\nAnother\t important  section of the 1971 Act is\tsection\t 15.
\nBroadly stated, section 15 speaks of bar of jurisdiction of
\ncourts.\t  Section  15  provides that no\t court\tshall have
\njurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in  respect
\nof  the\t eviction  of  any Person  who\tis  in\tunauthorised
\noccupation  of any public premises or the recovery  of\tthe
\narrears\t of rent payable Under section 7(1) of\tthe  damages
\npayable under section 7(2) or the costs under section 9(5).
\nThe  scheme  of\t the 1971 Act is that it  confers  power  on
\nEstate\tOfficer\t to  issue  notice to  persons\twho  are  in
\nunauthorised occupation of any public premises to show cause
\nwhy  an order of eviction should not be\t made.\t Unathorised
\noccupation’ under the Act in relation to any public premises
\nmeans  the occupation ‘by any person of the public  premises
\nwithout\t authority  for\t such occupation  and  includes\t the
\ncotinuance  in\toccupation  by\tany  person  of\t the  Public
\npremises after the authority whether by way of grant or\t any
\nother  mode  of\t transfer) under which he,  was\t allowed  to
\noccupy\tthe promises has expired or has been  determine\t for
\nany  reason whatsoever.\t Premises’ are defined to  mean\t any
\nland or any building or part of a building and includes\t the
\ngarden, grounds and outhouses, appertaining to such building
\nor  part  of  a building and any  fttting  affixed  to\tsuch
\nbuilding  or  part  of a building for  the  more  beneficial
\nenjoyment  thereof.  ‘Public premises’ means  any  premise,;
\nbelonging  to or taken on lease or requisitioned by,  or  on
\nbehalf of the Central Government as enumerated in section  2\n<\/p>\n
(e) of the Act.\t The notice. to show cause against order  of
\neviction  shall\t specify the grounds on which the  order  of
\neviction is nro-ozed to be made.  The Estate Officers  under
\nthe  Act are appointed by the Central Government. nv  Estate
\nOfficers are Gazetted Officers
\nor officers of equivalent rank.\t ‘Corporate authority’ under
\nthe Act means any company or Corporation or any committee or
\nthe  Authority as mentioned in the Act.\t The Estate  Officer
\nshall,\tfor  the purpose of holding any inquirv\t under\tthis
\nAct,  have  the same powers as are vested in a\tcivil  court
\nunder the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, when trying a suit,
\nin  respect  of matters mentioned in section 8 of  the\tAct.
\nThese matters are summoning and enforc-\n<\/p>\n
52 2
\ning the attendance of any person and examining him on  oath;
\nsecondly,   requiring  the  discovery  and   production\t  of
\ndocument;  and\tthirdly,  any  other  matter  which  may  be
\nprescribed.  Section 10 of the Act provides for finality  of
\norders\tin circumstances mentioned in section 10 of the\t Act
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
It  is necessary to notice that this Court on 4 April,\t1967
\ndecided the Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. (1) case on
\nthe  validity  of  the\tPunjab\tPublic\tPremises  and\tLand
\n(Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 and declared  section
\n5  of that Act to be violative of Article 14.\tIn  Northern
\nIndia  Caterers\t Private Ltd.(1) case the  State  of  Punjab
\nleased\tthe Mount View Hotel at Chandigarh for a  period  of
\nsix years from 24 September, 1953.  The Estate Officer\tgave
\na notice requiring the appellants in that case to show cause
\nas to why the order of eviction should not be made.  Section
\n5 of the 1959 Punjab Act provided that if after\t considering
\nthe  cause  and\t the  evidence produced\t by  any  person  in
\nunauthorised occupation of public premises and after  giving
\nhim reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector  is
\nsatisfied  that\t the  public premises  are  in\tunauthorised
\noccupation he ‘may make an order of eviction’.\tSection 5 of
\nthe  1959 Act was held to leave it to the discretion of\t the
\nCollector  to make an order of eviction in the case of\tsome
\nof  the\t tenants and not to make the order in  the  case  of
\nothers.\t  It was found that section 5 did not lay  down\t any
\nguiding principle or policy under which the Collector had to
\ndecide\tin  which cases he should follow one  or  the  other
\nprocedure.   This  Court found that the Government  had\t two
\nremedies  open to it.  One was under the ordinary law.\t The
\nother was a drastic and ‘more prejudicial remedy’ under\t the
\n1959  Act.   Consequently,  section 5 was  held\t to  violate
\nArtcle 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  1971 Act came into existence to validate anything\tdone
\nor any action taken or purported to have been done or  taken
\nunder  the  1958 Act.  In the first place, the 1971  Act  is
\nmade etrospective with effect from 16 September, 1958 except
\nsections 11, 19 and 20.\t In the second place, section 20  of
\nthe  1971  Act\twhich  is  described  as  the  section\t for
\nvalidation  provides that anything done or any action  taken
\nor  purported to have been done or taken shall be deemed  to
\nbe  as\tvalid and effective as if such thing or\t action\t was
\ndone  or  taken under the corresponding provisions  of\ttile
\n1971  Act.  In the third place. the 1971 Act by\t section  15
\nprovided  bar  of  jurisdiction\t of  courts  in\t respect  of
\neviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation  of
\nany public promises.  It. therefore, follows that under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  1\t971  Act  which\t had   retrospective
\noneration  from\t 16  Sentember,\t 1958  there  is  only\tone’
\nprocedure available for eviction of persons in\tunauthorised
\noccupation  of\tpublic premises.  That procedure  is  to  be
\nfound in the 1971
\n(1)  [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399.\n<\/p>\n
523<\/span><\/p>\n
Act.   The other courts have no function in  these  matters.
\nThe vice of Article 14 which was found by this Court in\t the
\ndecision  of  Northern India Caterers Private  Ltd.  (1)  no
\nlonger appears under the 1971 Act.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for the appellants contended that orders  made\t or
\neviction  ordered under the 1958 Act are not and  cannot  be
\nvalidated by section 20 of the 1971 Act.  The contention was
\namplified  in this manner.  Section 20 of the 1971 Act\tpre-
\nsupposes  and postulates that the 1958 Act was in  operation
\nand in existence.  The 1958 Act was violative of Article  14
\nof  the\t Constitution  and accordingly it  never  came\tinto
\nexistence  and was non-est.  Accordingly there could  be  no
\neviction  order\t under the 1958 Act.   Secondly,  Parliament
\ncannot\tby. ordinary legislation enact that  eviction  under
\nthe unconstitutional 1958 Act shall be deemed to be a  valid
\neviction under the 1971 Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  validity  of the 1971 Act depends\ton  the\t legislative
\ncompetence to validate anything done or any action taken  or
\npurported  to  have been done or taken under the  1958\tAct.
\nValidation is achieved by enacting that anything done or any
\naction\ttaken or purported to have been done or taken  shall
\nbe  deemed to be as valid and effective as if such thing  or
\naction was done or taken under the corresponding  provisions
\nof  the 1971 Act.  The result is that the 1971 Act  is\tmade
\nretrospective with effect from 16 September, 195 8. Anything
\ndone or any action taken under the 1958 Act is to be  deemed
\nas valid and effective under the provisions of the 1971 Act.
\nThe consequence is that the validity of action done or taken
\nis to be tested with reference to the provisions of the 1971
\nAct.   This Court in M\/S West Ramnad  Electric\tDistribution
\nCo. Ltd. v. State of Madras<\/a> (2 ) held that it is within\t the
\ncompetence  of\tthe legislature to enact a law and  make  it
\nretrospective  in  operation.  In the West  Ramnad  Electric
\nDistribution Co. Ltd(2) case the electric company vested  in
\nthe State of Madras under an order dated 17 May, 1951  under
\nthe  provisions\t of section 4(1) of the\t Madras\t Electricity
\nSupply Undertakings Act, 1949.\tThe validity of the Act\t was
\nchallenged.  This Court held that the Act of 1949 was  ultra
\nvires.\t After\tthe  decision  was  pronounced\tthe   Madras
\nLegislature passed the Madras Act 29 of 1954.  The  1954 Act
\nincorporated the main provisions of the earlier Act of\t1949
\nand validated action taken under the earlier Act.  The\tWest
\nRamnad\tElectric Distribution Co. Ltd. challenged  the\t1954
\nAct.   It  was\tcontended that the  validation\tsection\t was
\nineffectual and inoperative.  The submission in West  Ramnad
\nElectric  Distribution\tCo.  Ltd. ( 2 ) case  was  that\t the
\nnotification  in the year 1951 was invalid  and\t inoperative
\nbecause\t it contravened Article 31 of the Constitution.\t  It
\nwas therefore contended that by reason of
\n(1) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399.\n<\/p>\n
16-L 1286 CII 72
\n(2) [1963] 2S.C.R. 747.\n<\/p>\n
524<\/span><\/p>\n
the  decision  of  this\t Court that the\t Act  of  1949,\t was
\ninvalid, the notification was not supported by any authority
\nof  any\t pre-existing law.  This Court did not\taccept\tthat
\ncontention.    This   Court  said  that\t ‘if  the   Act\t  is
\nretrospective  in operation and section 24 has been  enacted
\nfor the purpose of retrospectively validating actions  taken
\nunder  the provisions of the earlier Act, it must follow  by
\nthe very retrospective operation of the relevant  provisions
\nthat at the time when the impugned notification was  issued,
\nthese  provisions were in existence.  That is the plain\t and
\nobvious\t effect\t of  the  retrospective\t operation  of\t the
\nstatute.   Therefore in considering whether Article  31\t (1)
\nhas  been complied with or not, we must assume\tthat  before
\nthe notification was issued, the relevant provisions of\t the
\nAct  were in existence and so, Article 3 1 (1) must be\theld
\nto have been complied with in that sense”.\n<\/p>\n
In  West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd.(1) case\tthis
\nCourt  referred\t to  the provisions of\tArticle\t 20  of\t the
\nConstitution   to   emphasise  the   instance\twhere,\t the
\nConstitution prevented retrospective operation of any  law.
\nAccent\twas placed on the words “law in force at  the  time”
\noccurring in Article 20.  The words “by authority of law” in
\nArticle 31(1) were distinguished from the words occurring in
\nArticle\t 20.  This Court said that if subsequent law  passed
\nby the legislature was retrospective in operation, it  would
\nsatisfy the requirement of Article 31(1) and would  validate
\nthe  impugned  notification  in\t the  West  Ramnad  Electric
\nDistribution Co.  Ltd. (1) case.\n<\/p>\n
The   ruling   of  this\t Court\tin  West   Ramnad   Electric
\nDistribution Co.  Ltd.(1) case establishes competence of the
\nlegislature to make laws retrospective in operation for\t the
\npurpose\t of validation of action done under an\tearlier\t Act
\nwhich  has  been declared by a decision of the court  to  be
\ninvalid.  It is to be appreciated that the validation is  by
\nvirtue\tof  the\t provisions  of\t the  subsequent  piece\t  of
\nlegislation.\n<\/p>\n
An  illustration of ineffective validation may be  found  in
\nthe  case of A Deputy Commissioner and Collector,  Kamrup  &
\nOrs.  v. Durga Nath Sarma<\/a>(2).  In that case, there  was\t the
\nAssam  Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and  Prevention
\nof Erosion Act, 1955.  It was passed on 11 April, 1955.\t The
\nAssam  Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and  Prevention
\nof Erosion (Validation) Act, 1960 was passed validating\t the
\nacquisition  of\t lands of which possession had\tbeen  taken.
\nThe  Assam Government took possession of lands in that\tcase
\nin  1954.  There was an order of acquisition under the\t1955
\nAct.   The owner of the land was asked to submit  claim\t for
\ncompensation  under  the 1955 as well as 1960  Acts.   Sarma
\nchallenged  the validity of both the Acts.  The\t High  Court
\nheld that the 1955 Act was violative
\n(1) [1963] S.C.R. 474.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1968] 1 S.C.R. 561.\n<\/p>\n
525<\/span><\/p>\n
of Article 31(2) of the Constitution as it stood before\t the
\nConstitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 and that the\t1960
\nAct  was not independent of the 1955 Act.  This\t Court\theld
\nthat  section 2 of the 1960 Act which validated\t land  taken
\nunder  the  1955 Act by enacting that the  same\t ‘shall\t be,
\ndeemed\tto have been validly acquired under  the  provisions
\nof’   the  1955\t Act  failed  to  achieve  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nvalidation.  The reason is this.  The 1955 Act was found  to
\nbe  violative  of Article 31(2) of the\tConstitution  as  it
\nstood before the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act,  1955,
\nbecause\t it did not ensure payment of a just  equivalent  of
\nthe  land appropriated.\t The 1955 Act was also found to\t be
\nviolative  of  Article 14 of the  Constitution.\t  There\t was
\ndiscrimination between owners of land similarly situated  by
\nthe  mere  accident  of some land  being  required  for\t the
\npurposes  mentioned  in\t the 1955 Act and  some\t land  being
\nrequired  for other purposes.  The validation clause of\t the
\n1960  Act was held by this Court to be totally\tineffective.
\nThe  1955  Act\twas  invalid.  The  1960  Act  provided\t for
\nvalidating acquisitions under the 1955 Act.  This Court said
\nthat  if  the 1955 Act was invalid  the\t deemed\t acquisition
\nunder  the 1960 Act was equally invalid.  The ratio is\tthat
\nthe 1960 Act had no power to enact that an acquisition under
\na constitutionally invalid Act was valid.  The 1960 Act\t did
\nnot  stand  independent\t of  the  1955\tAct.   The   deeming
\nprovision  of  the 1960 Act was that land was deemed  to  be
\nacquired   under  the  1955  Act.   If\tthe  1955  Act\t was
\nunconstitutional  the 1960 Act could not make the  1955\t Act
\nconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
The  distinction between West Ramnad  Electric\tDistribution
\nCo.  Ltd(1) case and Druga Nath Sarma’s(2) case is this.  In
\nthe West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. case  (supra)
\nthe  1954  Act validated actions and proceedings  under\t the
\nearlier Act by a deeming provision ,that acts or things were
\ndone by virtue of the provisions of the 1954 Act.  The\t1954
\nAct was not found to have any constitutional infirmity.\t  On
\nthe other hand Durga Nath Sarma’s(2) case (supra)  validated
\nby  the\t 1960  Act  acquisition under  the  1955  Act.\t The
\nacquisition  was  not  by  or  under  the  1960\t Act.\t The
\nacquisition  was  under\t the 1955 Act.\t The  1955  Act\t was
\nconstitutionally   invalid.    Therefore,   there   was\t  no
\nvalidation of earlier acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
The question of legislative competence to remove discrimina-
\ntion   by   a\tretrospective  legislation   came   up\t for
\nconsideration before this Court in State of Mysore & Anr. v.
\nD. Achiah Chetty<\/a> etc.(3). There were two Acts in Mysore\t for
\nacquisition  of private land for public purposes.   One\t was
\nthe  Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\t The other  was\t the
\nCity  of  Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945.   A\tnotification
\nunder the 1894 Act
\n(1) [1963] 2 S.C.R. 747.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 55
\n(2) [1968] S.C.R.561.\n<\/p>\n
526<\/span><\/p>\n
was  issued for acquisition of Chetty’s plots in  Bangalore.
\nChetty\tchallenged the acquisition on the ground that  using
\nthe   provisions   of\tthe   Land   Acquisition   Act\t was
\ndiscriminatory because in other cases the provisions of\t the
\nImprovement  Act  were\tapplied.  The  High  Court  accepted
\nChetty’s contention.  During the pendency of appeal to\tthis
\nCourt  the Bangalore Acquisition of Lands (Validation)\tAct,
\n1962  was  passed.  It validate ed  all\t acquisitions  made,
\nproceedings held, notifications issued or orders made  under
\nthe Land Acquisition Act before the 1962 Validation Act came
\ninto  force.  The 1962 Validation Act was challenged on\t the
\nground\t that  the,  two  Acts\tprescribed   two   different
\nprocedures.  It was also said that the Improvement Act was a
\nspecial law, and, therefore, the Acquisition Act was to give
\nway  to\t the  special law.  The validating  section  in\t the
\nMysore case (supra) provided that every acquisition of\tland
\nfor the purpose of improvement, expansion or development  of
\nthe  City of Bangalore by the State acting or purporting  to
\nact under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act shall be deemed to
\nhave  been  validly made, held or  issued.   The  validating
\nsection\t was impeached on the ground that there\t were  still
\ntwo  Acts  which covered the same field but  prescribed\t two
\ndifferent procedures.  It was also said that the Acquisition
\nAct was a more prejudicial procedure and was discriminatory.
\nThis Court found that the legislature retrospectively made a
\nsingle law for the acquisition of these properties.  It\t was
\ncontended that an acquisition hit by Article 14 or  anything
\ndone  previously could not be validated unless the  vice  of
\nunreasonable   classification\twas   removed.\t  The\t1962
\nValidation Act was impeached on that ground.  This Court did
\nnot accept the submission and said “if two procedures  exist
\nand one is followed and the other discarded, there may in  a
\ngiven case be found discrimination.  But the Legislature has
\nstill  the competence to put out of  action  retrospectively
\none of the procedures leaving one procedure only  available,
\nnamely,\t the  one followed and thus to\tmake  disappear\t the
\ndiscrimination.\t  In this way a Validating Act can get\tover
\ndiscrimination.\t Where, however, the legislative  competence
\nis  not\t available,  the discrimination\t that  if  there  is
\nlegislative competence the legislature can put removed by  a
\nlegislature having., power to create a single procedure\t out
\nof two and not by a legislature which has not that power”.
\nThe Mysore case (supra) is an authority for the\t proposition
\nthat if there is legislative competence the legislature\t can
\nput  out  of action retrospectively one\t of  the  procedures
\nleaving\t one procedure only available and thus removing\t the
\nvice  of discrimination.  That is exactly what has  happened
\nin  the 1971 Act in the present appeals.  The 1958  Act\t was
\nchallenged on the ground that there were two procedures\t and
\nthe choice of either was left
\n\t\t\t    527<\/span>
\nto  the unguided discretion of the Estate Officer. The\t1971
\nAct  does  not\tleave  any such\t discretion  to\t the  Estate
\nOfficer.   Under the 1971 Act there is only  one  procedure.
\nThe  deeming provision contained in section 20 of  the\t1971
\nAct  validates actions done by virtue of the  provisions  of
\nthe 1971 Act.\n<\/p>\n
The meaning of a Validation Act is to remove the causes\t for
\nineffectiveness\t or  invalidity of  actions  or\t proceedings
\nwhich are validated by a Legislative measure.  This Court in
\nShri  Prithvi  Cotton  Mills Ltd. & Anr.  v.  Broach  Borogh
\nMunicipality  &\t Ors.,<\/a> ( 1970) 1 S.C.R. 388 dealt  with\t the
\nGujarat\t Imposition of Taxes by Municipalities\t(Validation)
\nAct,  1963.   Under  section  73  of  the  Bombay  Municipal
\nBoroughs  Act,\t1925  a municipality could levy\t a  rate  on
\nbuilding  or lands or both situate within the  municipality.
\nThis Court held in Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas v. Municipal
\nCommissioner,  Ahmedabad,<\/a> (1964) 2 S.C.R. 608 that the\tterm
\n‘rate’ must be confined to an impost on the basis of  annual
\nletting\t value\tand it could not be validly a  levy  on\t the
\nbasis  of  capital  value.  Because  of\t this  decision\t the
\nGujarat\t Legislature passed the Gujarat Imposition of  Taxes
\nby  Municipalities  (Validation) Act, 1963.   The  1963\t Act
\nprovided  that past assessment and collection of  ‘rate’  on
\nlands  and  buildings  on the basis of capital\tvalue  or  a
\npercentage  of capital value was declared valid despite\t any
\njudgment  of  a\t court or Tribunal to  ,the  contrary.\t The
\nearlier decision of this Court was applicable to the meaning
\nof  the\t word  ‘rate’  occurring  in  the  1925\t Act.\t The
\nValidation  Act gave its own meaning and  interpretation  of
\nthe law under which the tax was collected.  It was also said
\nby .his Court that a tax declared illegal could be validated
\nif  the ground of illegality was capable of  being  removed.
\nTherefore, a   validating law is upheld first by finding out
\nwhether thelegislature\tpossesses  competence  over  the
\nsubject matter, and,secondly, whether by validation the
\nlegislature has removed thedefect which\t  the courts  had
\nfound in the previous law.\n<\/p>\n
The legislature had legislative competence to enact the 1971
\nAct.   It  means that it could legislate on the\t subject  of
\nproviding  a  speedy procedure for eviction  of\t persons  in
\nunauthorised occupation of public premises.  The legislature
\nhas  power to pass laws with retrospective  operation.\t The
\nchallenge  to  the  1971  Act  is  that\t the  1958  Act\t  is
\nunconstitutional, and, therefore, there cannot be validation
\nof anything done under an unconstitutional Act.\t The fallacy
\nof the appellants’ submission is in overlooking the  crucial
\nprovisions  in the 1971 Act that the 1971 Act  is  effective
\nfrom  16 September, 1958 and the action done under the\t1958
\nAct  is deemed to be done under the 1971 Act.  There  is  no
\nvice  of discrimination under the 1971 Act.  There  is\tonly
\none procedure under the 1971 Act.\n<\/p>\n
528<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was contended that the word ‘premises’ in the Act  would
\nnot  apply  to agricultural land.  The\tword  ‘premises’  is
\ndefined\t  to   mean  any  land.\t  Any  land   will   include
\nagricultural  land.  There is nothing in the Act to  exclude
\nthe   applicability  of\t the  Act  to\tagricultural   land.
\nReference  was\tmade  to sections 42 and 43  of\t the  Punjab
\nTenancy\t Act,  1887.  Section 42 of the 1887 Act  speaks  of
\nrestriction  on ejectment.  Section 43 provides\t for  appli-
\ncation to the Revenue Officer for ejectment.  It was said on
\nbehalf of the appellants that Article 14 of the Constitution
\nwas  offended  because\tof the procedure  under\t the  Punjab
\nTenancy Act, 1887 being available.  There is no substance in
\nthat  contention.  Section 15 of the 1971 Act provides\tonly
\none  procedure\tfor ejectment of  persons  in  unauthorised.
\noccupation of public premises.\n<\/p>\n
The  1958 Act has not been declared by this Court to be\t un-
\nconstitutional.\t  Section 5 of the 1959 Punjab Act was\theld
\nby  this  Court in the decision in Northern  India  Caterers
\nPrivate Ltd. case (supra) to be an infraction of Article 14.
\nSection\t 5  of the 1958 Central Act is in terms\t similar  to
\nsection\t 5 of the 1959 Punjab Act.  The arguments on  behalf
\nof  the appellants therefore proceeded on the  footing\tthat
\nthe  1958 Act will be presumed to be  unconstitutional.\t  It
\nwas  therefore\tsaid that the 1971 Act\tcould  not  validate
\nactions\t done  under the 1958 Act.  The answer\tis  for\t the
\nreasons\t indicated above that the legislature was  competent
\nto enact this legislation in 1958 and the legislature by the
\n1971  Act  has\tgiven  the  legislation\t full  retrospective
\noperation.   The legislature has power to  validate  actions
\nunder  an  earlier Act by removing the\tinfirmities  of\t the
\nearlier\t Act.\tThe  1971 Act has achieved  that  object  of
\nvalidation.\n<\/p>\n
For  these  reasons,  the appeals fail\tand  are  dismissed.
\nParties will pay and bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Beg,  J. I entirely agree with my learned Brother Ray  whose
\nJudgment  I  have had the advantage of perusing.   I  would,
\nhowever, like to add some observations about the contention,
\nput  forward with some vehemence by the learned Counsel\t for
\nthe  Appellant;, based mainly on Keshavan Madhava Menon\t Vs.
\nThe  State of Bombay(1); Behram Khurshed Pasikaka  Vs.\t The
\nState  of Bombay(2); Saghir Ahmad Vs.  The State of  U.P.  &
\nOrs(3);\t Bhikaji  Narain Dhakras & Ors.\t Vs.  The  State  of
\nM.P. & Ors.(4); M. P. V. Sundararamiah & Co. Vs.  The  State
\nof A.P. & Anr.(5); Deep Chand Vs.  State of U.P. &  Ors.(6);
\nMahendra Lal Jaini Vs. The State of H.P. & Ors.7B. Sharma
\nRao Vs. The
\n     (1) [1951] S.C.R. 228.(2) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 613.
\n     (3) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707. (4) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 589.
\n     (5) [1958] S.C.R. 1422.  (6) [1959] 2 Supp. S.C.R. 8.
\n(7)  [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 912.\n<\/p>\n
529<\/span><\/p>\n
Union  Territory  of Pondicherry(1); Deputy  Commissioner  &
\nCollector,  Kamrup  &  Ors.  Vs.  Durga\t Nath  Sarma(1),  P.
\nBhooma Reddy Vs.  State of Mysore & Ors.(3).
\nI  do  not  think that all the\tcases  listed  above  really
\nsupport\t the submissions made on behalf of  the\t appellants.
\nAnd,  those  from which learned Counsel for  the  appellants
\ncould derive some support for any proposition put forward by
\nhim  do\t not  really apply, for two broad  reasons,  to\t the
\nposition  we  have  to consider in the\tcases  before  us  :
\nFirstly, this Court has not so far declared any part of\t the
\nPublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 32
\nof 1958, to be a void piece of legislation, and,  therefore,
\nno  question  of applying Article 141  of  the\tConstitution
\narose  here before the High Courts.  Secondly, the  argument
\nof  the\t learned Counsel for the Appellants seems to  me  to
\nrest entirely on the erroneous assumption that provisions of
\nthe Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
\n32  of 1958 were void for a “contravention” of Part  III  of
\nthe   Constitution  covered  by\t Article  13  (2)   of\t the
\nConstitution, on the strength of which it was submitted that
\nwhat  was  “non est” in the eye of law,\t or  “stillborn”  in
\npopular\t language, cannot be legalised, validated, or  given
\nlife and force.\t An examination of the cases which could  be
\nrelied\tupon by the learned Counsel for the  appellants,  to
\nsupport\t his  submission  on the  effect  of  constitutional
\ninvalidity,  shows that each of these cases dealt  with\t a
\nsituation  in  which  either an ab initio  or  per  se\tvoid
\nenactment  or  action  taken  under  it\t was  sought  to  be
\nvalidated.\n<\/p>\n
In  Northern  India  Caterers (Pvt.)  Ltd.,  Vs.   State  of
\nPunjab(4), there was no difference of opinion in this  Court
\non  the question whether, in providing a separate  procedure
\nfor eviction of unauthorised occupants of public properties,
\nthere  was  a reasonable relationship or nexus\tbetween\t the
\nobject of the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent
\nRecovery) Act, 1959, and the special procedure designed\t for
\nachieving  a valid object.  Even the majority view  in\tthat
\ncase  was  based  upon\tthe  assumption\t that  the   special
\nprocedure  did\tnot, by itself, infringe Article 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.  This meant ‘that the special procedure  under
\nSection\t 5 of the Punjab Act was not held to constitute\t per
\nse  a “contravention” contemplated by Article 13(2)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThere was, however, a difference of  opinion
\nbetween learned Judges of this Court on the question whether
\nthis special and more drastic procedure, when viewed in\t the
\ncontext of ‘the
\n(1)  [1967] 2 S.C.R. 650.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1969]3 S.C.R. 14.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1968] 1 S.C.R. 561.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399
\n530<\/span>
\nless  drastic procedure permissible under the ordinary\tlaw,
\nfor filing suits against unauthorised occupants, did or\t did
\nnot   become  unconstitutional.\t  It  was  held\t  that\t the
\n“additional”  drastic  remedy, together with the  option  to
\nproceed otherwise also, left room for discrimination between
\nunauthorised  occupants\t against  whom\teither\tof  the\t two
\nprocedures  may be utilised.  Therefore, the  majority\tview
\nwas  that, although, the procedure provided under Section  5
\nof  the\t Punjab Act may be otherwise valid, yet,  it  became
\ninvalid\t or  incapable of being used because of\t the  option
\nleft to adopt another procedure existing under the  ordinary
\nlaw  of the land which lay outside the Act.  If there was  a
\ndefect\tor  lacuna  left in framing the\t Punjab\t Act,  which
\ninvalidated  Section  5, it was that it did  not  contain  a
\nprohibition against the alternative procedure left open\t and
\nnot  that  it  contained something  which  was,\t in  itself,
\nprohibited.   And,  what the Act did not contain  was  still
\nsomething  outside  the\t Act.\tThe  unconstitutionality  of
\nSection\t 5 of the Punjab Act thus really arose from  matters
\nextraneous to the Act.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that in Northern India Caterer’s case (supra), it
\nwas held by this Court that Section 5 of the Punjab Act\t was
\n‘void”,\t but, it seems clear that this consequence  followed
\nfrom  examining the more drastic statutory procedure in\t the
\ncontext\t of  ordinary  procedural law.\t It  am,  therefore,
\ninclined  to  interpret the majority view in  that  case  as
\nlaying\tdown  nothing  more than ‘that,\t although  the\tmore
\ndrastic\t procedure  may be otherwise valid, yet,  it  became
\nmerely\tincapable  of  adoption or  “unenforceable”  in\t the
\nsituation  emerging from the totality of provisions of\tlaw
\nconsidered there.  I do not find that anything was held\t in-
\nthat  case to justify the view that Section 5 of the  Punjab
\nAct  was  per se or ab initio void.  This question  was\t not
\ndiscussed in Northern India Caterers’ case (supra),  because
\nno  method of validating a provision which could be  assumed
\nto  be valid but which became “void” only in the context  of
\nother  ordinary\t law  of the land  was\tunder  consideration
\nthere.\n<\/p>\n
The  result, of the Act of 1971 appears to me to be  nothing
\nshort of a “re-enactment” retrospectively so that no  ground
\nis left open for the argument that there is any\t possibility
\nof  discrimination between unauthorised occupants of  public
\npremises  since the date from which the Act of\t1971  became
\napplicable.  The validity of any past action, even under the
\nold  Act 32 of 1958, will have to be judged in the light  of
\nprovisions of the Act 40 of 1971.  If some proceeding  taken
\nunder Act 32 of 1958 is still pending, as it is in the\tcase
\nof  the appellants M\/s.\t Bhartiya Hotel, Chupra, Bihar,\t its
\ncorrectness   and   validity  will  be\t governed   by\t the
\nrequirements  laid  down by Act 40 of 1971 as  it  would  be
\n“deemed” to be a proceeding under the new Act.\tIn the\tcase
\nof the other Appellants Hari Singh & Others, from Punjab,
\n531<\/span>
\nthe  eviction  took place in accordance with  the  procedure
\nunder Act 32 of 1958.  But, even these appellants could\t not
\ncomplain   that\t  any  of  the\trights\tprotected   by\t the
\nprocedure .found in Act, 40 of 1971 were infringed,  because
\nthe  procedure for eviction, including a right to appeal  to
\nthe  District  Judge,  is indentical under  both  the  Acts.
\nIndeed,\t the  judgments under appeal before  us\t were  given
\nbefore the Act 40 of 1971 came into force.  The Act of\t1971
\nbecame\trelevant for these cases only because the  objection
\nto the validity of the procedure under the Act of 1958\twas
\nno   longer   available\t  to  the   appellants\t after\t the
\nretrospective\tfilling\t  up   of   the\t  previous    lacuna
\nretrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Counsel had urged that the legislative\tincompetence
\nto violate rights conferred by Part III of the\tConstitution
\ncould not be cured by any law short of a valid amendment  of
\nthe Constitution.  But, it seems to me that there was no per
\nse  “void” or ” unenforceable” (a term which I would  employ
\nin  preference\tto “void” in such a context) law  before  us
\nwhich  was validated.  Even if there was a “validation”\t and
\nnot  a re-enactment, in substance, it also made invalid\t any
\npossible discriminatory acts which may have been  committeed
\nduring the currency of the Act of 1958, of which there is no
\nevidence  before  us, by the  Governmental  authorities,  in
\nproceeding under the ordinary law against some\tunauthorised
\noccupants.\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted that the effect of Section 20 of Act 40  of
\n1971  was realty to validate what was merely “purported”  to
\nhave  been  done in the past, so that it was assumed  to  be
\nlegally “non est”, and, therefore, it could not be  “deemed”
\nto  be\tas good as action taken under  the  Public  Premises
\n(Eviction  of  Unauthorised Occupants) Act 40 of  1971.\t  To
\naccept\t this\tview  would  make  the\t deeming   provision
\nmeaningless.   I  think that the view which  we\t have  taken
\ninvolves   that\t the  deeming  provision  would\t  not\tcure
\nillegality in any past action which may still be there\twhen
\ntested by the standards and the procedure provided by Act 40
\nof 1971.  That is a logical and natural consequence of using
\nthe  word “deemed”.  The word “purported” was used  only  to
\ndescribe or identify past action taken under a repealed\t Act
\nand it had no effect beyond that.  That action would now  be
\ndeemed to have taken place under Act 40 of 1971.
\nIt  has\t not even been contended before us that\t any  action
\nagainst\t the appellants is invalid tested by the  provisions
\nof Act 40 of 1971.  The more fact that the procedure adopted
\nunder  Act 32 of 1958 was attributable to a  past  enactment
\nwhen  that  procedure, taken by itself, did not\t infringe  a
\nconstitutional\tguarantee, did not make its  shortcoming  or
\ndeficiency incurable.  The invalidity of that procedure,  if
\nany, could only result from the
\n532<\/span>
\nOperation or effect upon it of the extraneous factors of  an
\nomission  from\tthe statute and of the procedure  under\t the
\nordinary law.  I would equate the legal position, which\t may
\nthus  emerge,  with one in which the drastic  procedure\t was
\nmerely\tunder  a  shadow  or in a  state  of  suspension  or
\nunenforceability  due to reasons failing outside the Act  32
\nof  1958.   Once  those reasons are eliminated\tby  the\t new
\nenactment,  the\t shadow\t is removed and\t the  old  procedure
\nbecomes\t operative  and effective retrospectively in  a\t new
\ngarb without a change in the substance beneath it. if no one
\ncan  have a vested right in a procedure which does  not,  by
\nitself, violate a constitutional guarantee, one could not, a
\nfortiori,  insist  that\t it should  not\t bear  a  particular
\ndescriptive  label  which is thereto alucidate\tthe  meaning
\nonly.\tAfter  all, we are concerned with the  real  meaning
\nand  effect of the words used and not with what they may  be
\nmade to appear to convey by a merely clever play with words.
\nThe unmistakable effect of what was laid down by the Act  40
\nof  1971  was  simply that the option to  proceed  to  evict
\nunauthorised occupants of public properties in any way\tout-
\nside the Act was shut out retrospectively.  This was clearly
\nwithin the legislative competence of Parliament.
\nFor all the reasons given by my learned Brother Ray as\twell
\nas  for\t a few more given above I  respectfully\t agree\twith
\norders made by my learned Brethren.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed.\n533<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2205, 1973 SCR (1) 515 Author: A Ray Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Ray, A.N., Dua, I.D. & Palekar, D.G., Khanna, Hans Raj Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: HARI SINGH AND ORS. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And ... on 3 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And ... on 3 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-29T15:24:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-29T15:24:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\"},\"wordCount\":6642,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\",\"name\":\"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And ... on 3 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-29T15:24:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And ... on 3 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And ... on 3 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-29T15:24:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972","datePublished":"1972-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-29T15:24:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972"},"wordCount":6642,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972","name":"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And ... on 3 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-29T15:24:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-and-ors-vs-the-military-estate-officer-and-on-3-may-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And … on 3 May, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213774\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}