D. K. NABHIRAJIAH versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS.

D. K. NABHIRAJIAH versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS.

The Court held that since the allotment order was made before the Constitution came into force and when the Control Order validly provided for such allotments, the impugned actions could not be challenged on the basis of Articles 31(2) or 19(1)(f); the loss of possession followed from earlier orders. There was no State acquisition under Article 31(2), but the creation of a statutory tenancy by order. The Control Order, as amended in 1949, authorized allotment to individuals, and the Controller’s power was not limited only to properties 'available for letting'. Article 14 grounds were not pressed.

Parties
Petitioner: D. K. Nabhirajiah; Respondent: State of Mysore; Respondent: Deputy Commissioner and House Rent Controller, Bangalore; Respondent: Sri Aswathanarayana Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 May 1952
Procedural Posture
Original Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Final Decision
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Validity of Requisition and Allotment Orders, Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, Article 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, Retrospective Application of Fundamental Rights
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Validity of Requisition and Allotment Orders Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948 Article 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution Retrospective Application of Fundamental Rights

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. K. Nabhirajiah

Petitioner

State of Mysore

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner and House Rent Controller, Bangalore

Respondent

Sri Aswathanarayana Rao

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Original Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an allotment order made prior to the Constitution but executed after its commencement contravenes Articles 31(2) or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, as amended, permitted allotment of a house to a private individual.
  3. 3 Whether there was an unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that since the allotment order was made before the Constitution came into force and when the Control Order validly provided for such allotments, the impugned actions could not be challenged on the basis of Articles 31(2) or 19(1)(f); the loss of possession followed from earlier orders. There was no State acquisition under Article 31(2), but the creation of a statutory tenancy by order. The Control Order, as amended in 1949, authorized allotment to individuals, and the Controller’s power was not limited only to properties 'available for letting'. Article 14 grounds were not pressed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs