Dalbir Kaur v. Union Of India & ORS
!"# !$%&%"' ( (
)*%+, -+.&%'$!/!$! &!/0 1+"-213&
'%"'"# '/% '/" 1!+& 45 34(6 66, 5 34(6 33
+!&!' !
""""
6-+!&17 +1 8-+ 9(.+ )0 # $ % &' $( &'%) * +%( , $% % +% ++ (( %%- + . %-%. $ - % ( /( 0 1+ : '$1 ; "# <%)) 2! : )=-+ <>& 4 )7%'/!+ 6%'212 +
-+ (0 %- '(#345 +
+ -'
%% % % %- % %. (%% % %%
%% 6
0 75 (- -
- + ( 5 & % -%-#5#338 )9*(% 6)-*#38# +0 "(ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been alIotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Departrment of the State Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985 ;]"
4.
$ - - % % % ( ( + 9 % % (- :
(%(3 ;
#3<4. % )
* -%- #5#338+ -( Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan versus State of Punjab and others +CWP No. 4816 of 1996 - + - %
-%- '(<#334 #5#338$ - - )
*
% - %- ( '( - %( ( + - (
#38# ( % - % '(#38# - %-$
-( '
-%)
* :
% - %- +:
#38# % (% '(#38# 4 . ( % +
% $ - 53=>'
-%)
* - + 0
39. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Govt. of A.P. and another v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2037. In that case, it was held as under:- "8. We see no substance in the respondent's contention that by redefining the term 'house' with retrospective effect and by validating the levies imposed under the unamended Act as if, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment decree or order of any court, that Act as amended was in force on the date when the tax was levied, the Legislature has encroached upon a judicial,function
-4The power of the Legislature to pass a law postulates the power to pass it prospectively as well as retrospectively, the one no less than the other. Within the scope of its legislative competence and subject to other constitutional limitations, the power of the Legislature to enact laws is plenary.
9. The State legislature, it is significant, has not overruled or set aside the judgment of the High Court. It has amended the definition of 'house' by the substitution of a new section 2(15) for the old section and it has provided that the new definition shall have retrospective effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority. In other words, it has removed the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court so that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances.
10. In Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath v. State of U. P. (2), the Legislature amended the law retrospectively and thereby removed the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court of Allahabad. It was held by this Court that this was within the permissible limits and validation of the old Act by amending it retrospectively did not constitute an encroachment on the functions of the judiciary. (emphasis supplied)."
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar controversy in M/s Utkal Contractors & Joinery (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), regarding competency of the legislature to pass Act retrospectively/ prospectively, observed as under:-
-5- "14. The next question to be considered is whether the State while purporting to amend the Act has encroached upon the judicial power and set aside the binding judgment of this Court. We do not think that Mr.Nariman was justified in contending so. The principles have been well established in a string of decisions of this Court, and we may briefly summarise as follows:
The legislature may, at any time, in exercise of the plenary power conferred on it by Arts. 245 and 246 of the Constitution render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law. There is no prohibition against retrospective legislation. The power of the legislature to pass a law postulates the power to pass it prospectively as well as retrospectively. That of course, is subject to the legislative competence and subject to other constitutional limitation. The rendering ineffective of judgments or orders of competent Courts by changing their basis by legislative enactment is a well known pattern of all validating acts. Such validating legislation which removes the causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity of action or proceedings cannot be considered as encroachment on judicial power.
The legislature, however, cannot by a bare declaration, without more, directly overrule, reverse or set aside any judicial decision. Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer (1973) 1 SCR 515: (AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2205), Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.
-62037), I.N. Saksena v.State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCR 237: (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2250) and Misri Lal Jain v. State of Orissa (1977) 3 SCR 714: (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1686)."
6.
- ( 0 - % %%%- :
- (-+
+( 6=46=8 '
( -+ (
+ ( -$( ( )
*(
%-#5#338 ( % +% %
+( + % + :
( %(3 ;
#3<4 7 . :
+ #38# %( /( 0 1+ : '$1 ; "#<%)) 2! : )=-+<>&4 )7%'/!+6%'21?$ %%
-
)
* % )
* (%% ( /( 0 ( 99 - - #38# - + + % #38# %
%
-7- + % >3>?#3<4 $ %
- :
(:
- + +%
- :
.66,0 ( ( .33 0
@ -7 B 7 @ ( B 7