JAYANTILAL AMRIT LAL SHODHAN versus F.N. RANA AND OTHERS

JAYANTILAL AMRIT LAL SHODHAN versus F.N. RANA AND OTHERS

The President's notification under Article 258(1) is an executive act and does not have force of law. After the reorganisation, without the consent of the State of Gujarat, such notification is not saved under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. The Commissioner of Baroda Division had no power to act under such notification for land acquisition proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan; Respondents: F.N. Rana and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 November 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1961
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs in accordance with majority opinion; High Court order upheld.
Legal Topics
Entrustment of Executive Functions, Force of Law of Presidential Notifications, Land Acquisition Procedures, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Property Law Entrustment of Executive Functions Force of Law of Presidential Notifications Land Acquisition Procedures Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan

Appellant

F.N. Rana and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1961

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President's notification under Article 258(1) of the Constitution had force of law after the creation of Gujarat State and without its consent
  2. 2 Whether functions entrusted under the notification could be delegated and the nature of inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act

Ratio Decidendi

The President's notification under Article 258(1) is an executive act and does not have force of law. After the reorganisation, without the consent of the State of Gujarat, such notification is not saved under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. The Commissioner of Baroda Division had no power to act under such notification for land acquisition proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs in accordance with majority opinion; High Court order upheld.

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed; notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act not saved and must be struck down.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.