Ravinder Narain, Bhuvnesh Kumar, and A. Subba Rao, for intervener No.
1 in both the appeals .
The Estate Officer on 16 March, 1966 passed an order of eviction against tile appellants.
The appellants thereafter moved the High Court at Patna for cluashing the order of eviction.
The High Court on 21 December, 1967 dismissed the writ petition of the appellants.
it was aid that tile word premises did number apply to agricultural land.
It validate ed all acquisitions made, proceedings held, numberifications issued or orders made under the Land Acquisition Act before the 1962 Validation Act came into force.
1456 of 1968 .
v. State of Punjab Anr.
1 in C.A. No.
One was to seek the remedy in a companyrt of law by instituting a suit for eviction.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 6, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Estate Officer, North Eastern Railway served a numberice dated 12 June, 1964 under section 4 1 of the 1959 Act on Ram Lakhan Prasad for eviction of the appellants on the ground that the appellant,, were in unauthorised occupation.
493 of 1967 .
Secondly, it was said that the legislation on agricultural land was within the exclusive legislative, filed of the State, and, therefore, the Central Act was unconstitutional.
The Estate Officer found that there was numbersanction of the companypetent authority permitting sub lease.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 21, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
On 25 July, 1961 an order was passed under section 5 of the 1958 Act evicting the appellants.
Rameshwar Dial, Sharda Rani and A. D. Mathur, for the appel lants in C.A. No.
The ratio is that the 1960 Act had numberpower to enact that an acquisition under a companystitutionally invalid Act was valid.
is by certificate against the judgment dated 12 December, 1967 of the High Court at Patna.
During the pendency of appeal to this Court the Bangalore Acquisition of Lands Validation Act, 1962 was passed.
The High Court referred to the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd, Anr.
1958 except sections 11, 19 and 20 which came into force on 23 August.
The period of the lease was number extended.
Soli Sorabjee, Lalit Bhasin, R. N. Banerjee, Ravinder Narain and P. C. Bhartari, for intervener No.
Section 5 1 ,of the 1958 Act companyferred power on the Estate Officer to make an order of eviction against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises.
The appeal is by certificate from the decision of the High Court.
2 in C.A. No.
The appeal filed by Bhartiya Hotel Ors.
The appellants preferred Letters Patent appeal.
K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for intervener No.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 13 May, 1963.
The 1958 Act was attacked on the ground that there was the unguided discretion of the authorities to either of the remedies and to pick and choose some of them in occupation of public premises for the application of the drastic procedure under the 1958 Act.
4 in C.A. No.
There was an order dated 17 June, 1960 under the 1958 Act for eviction of Behari La. The appellants claimed to be sub lessees of Behari Lal.
493 of 1967 .
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
First.
On 18 April, 1962 the appeal was dismissed.
This Court said that if the 1955 Act was invalid the deemed acquisition under the 1960 Act was equally invalid.
The appellants raised the companytention that the amendment effected by section 1 OE of the Act was number retrospective and therefore the proceedings forming subject matter of the appeals were number saved by the amendment.
Ray, J. These two appeals raised originally the companystitutionality .of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1958.
In the appeal filed by Hari Singh and others two companytentions were raised in the High Court.
K. Sinha, S. K. Sinha, B. B. Sinha and S. K. Bisaria, for the appellants in C.A. No.
214of 1963 and Civil Appeal No.
3310/ .
The lease expired on 1 May, 1957.
In the appeal filed by Hari Singh one Behari Lal obtained lease from the President through the Military Estate Officer, Delhi Circle of 36.73 acres of land at Ambala Cantonment.
One of the partners obtained lease of a plot of land at Chapra in Bihar.
The rent was payable in advance.
3 in A. No.
The other was the remedy prescribed by the 1958 Act.
The appellants preferred on appeal to the District Judge, Ambala.
K. Sen, S. C. Majumdar and R. K. Jain, for intervener No.
The challenge was on the ground that section 5 1 of the 1958 Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
222 of 1966.
493 of 1967.
The 1955 Act was invalid.
Thereafter the appellants filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court.
1456 of 1968.
There was discrimination between owners of land similarly situated by the mere accident of some land being required for the purposes mentioned in the 1955 Act and some land being required for other purposes.
The Judgment of SIKRI, C.J., SHELAT, RAY, DUA, PALEKAR and KHANNA, JJ.
was issued for acquisition of Chettys plots in Bangalore.
The 1958 Act was amended in 1968Z Section 10E was introduced into the 1958 Act.
493 of 1967 .
493 of 1967 .
Behari Lal failed to payment.
1456 of 1967 .
The lease permitted subletting only with the permission of the companypetent authority.
was delivered by RAY, J. BEG, J. delivered a separate companycurring opinion.
Notice was given under the 1958 Act to the appellants to show cause as to why they should number be evicted under the Act, because they were in unauthorised occupation of the land.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General of India, L. M. Singhvi, Parameswara Rao and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
The Government had two alternative remedies of eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation.
The annual rent was Rs.
The appeal filed by Hari Singh an, others is by certificate against the decision of the High Court of Punjab.
The High Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September, 1966.
The lease was for four years from 1 May, 1952.
The validation clause of the 1960 Act was held by this Court to be totally ineffective.
The vice of section 5 1 of the 195 8 Act against Article 14 of the Constitution was this.
493 of 1967 and the intervener in C.A. No.
The appellants there are partners carrying on business under the name of Bhartiya Hotel at Ratanpura.
Behari Lal failed to surrender possession.
Ram Lakhan Prasad is the partner who obtained the lease.
