GOVINDI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one out of numerous writ applications filed in this Court questioning the validity of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" or "the impugned Act". The validity of the Act has been upheld in a recent decision of a Full Bench of this Court, vide 'Suryapal Singh v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1951 A. L. J. 365.

(2.) Sri Prem Mohan Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, however, urges that there are several points that arise in the case which were not argued before the Pull Bench and hence were not dealt with by that Bench, He contends that the Act is invalid for several reasons.

(3.) The first ground argued is that apart from the provisions of Article 31(2), the State Legislature was incompetent to legislate with regard to the acquisition of the property of the intermediaries on condition of payment of compensation by means of bonds. It is urged that the condition of payment of compensation by bonds is no payment of compensation at all, inasmuch as a bond is merely a promise to pay in future and is not equivalent to payment in cash. It is further urged that the State Legislature under the powers given to it, under entry 36 of list II of the 7th schedule, can only legislate with regard to acquisition of property, if there had been an enactment laying down principles of cash payment under entry 42 of list III; and as the principles of payment of compensation laid down in the impugned Act are not principles of payment of cash compensation, they are no principles at all and consequently the State Legislature could not pass the Act.