BHIKAJI NARAIN DHAKRAS AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER.

2 S.C.R.

impossible to hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions Judge did not impose substantial sen-teilce, and no adequate reasoP has been assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering the sentence manifestly inadequate. In the circumstances, bearing all the considerations of this case in mind, we are of opinion that the appeal (which is limited to the question of sentence) should be allowed and that the sentence , imposed by the High Court should be set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored. Ordered accordingly.

Bed iw v. T/14 SI/JU of Ullar Praduh Bose J.

BHIKAJI NARAIN DHAKRAS AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER.

[S. R. DAS, ACTING c. J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYA11, }AFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]

Fundamental Rights, Infringement of-I.Aw void for inconsistency -'Void', Meaning of-Removal of inconsistency by amendment of the' Constitution, if revivifies the law-Constitution of India as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, Arts. 13, 19(6), 31(2)-C.P. & Berar Motor Vehic!es (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act Ill of 1948).

The petitioners who carried on their business as stage carriage operators of Ma<ihya Pradesh for considerable number of years challenged the constitutional validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehides (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act III of 19!l8) which amended the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) and conferred extensive powers on the Provincial Government including the power to create monopoly of the motor transport business in its favour to the exclusion of all motor transport operators. In· exercise of the powers conferred by new s. 43(1)(iv) notification was issued on the 4th of February, 1955, qeclaring the intention of the Govern-ment to take up certain ro.ites. The case of the petitioners was that the passing of the Constitution and the grant of fundamental rights rendered the ltct void under Art. 13 ( 1) being inconsistent with the provisions of Arts. 19(1) (g) and 31(2), and reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme CQurt in Shagir Ahmad v. The State of T.J .P. & others. On behalf of the .respondents it was contended that although as result of the said decision the iu>pugned Act w:iS

1955 September 29

rendered void, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, and the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, had the effect of removing the inconsistency and the Amending Act (III of 1948) be-came operative again. It was, however, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned Act being void under Art. 13(1) was dead and could not be revivified by any subsequent amendment of the Constitution. It must be re-enacted.

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and othtrs v. The Stale of Madhya Pradesh andanotlur

Held that Shagir Ahmad's case had no application and the con· tentions put forward by the respondents were well founded and must be accepted.

That it is well-settled that the word 'void' in Art. 13 means void to the eXtent of the inconsistency with fundamental right and the language of the article makes it clear that the entire operation of an inconsistent Act is not .wiped out. It applies to past transactions and the rights and ·liabilities accruing therefrom and continues even after the commencement of the Constitution to ~pply to non-citizens.

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay [1951] S.C.R. 288, relied on.

The true effect of Art. 13( 1) is to render an Act, inconsistent with fundamental right, ifioperative to the extent of the inconsist-ency. It is overshadowed by the fundamental right and remains dormant but is not dead. With the amendment made in cl. ( 6) of Art. 19 by the first Amendment Act the provisions of the impugned Act were no longer inconsistent therewith and the result was that the impugned Act began to operate once again from the date of such amendment with this difference that, unlike amended clause (2) of Art. 19 which was expressly made retrospective, no rights and obli-gations could be founded on the provisions of the impugned Act from the date of the Commencement of the Constitution till the date of the amendment. The notification declaring the intention of the State to take over the bus routes to the exclusion of all other motor transport operators was, therefore, perfectly valid. .

. Shagir Ahmad v. The State of U.P. & Others, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707 and Behrom Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bomb~y. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 613, distinguished and held inapplicable.

American authorities held inapplicable.

Nor can the impugned Act, e>n parity of reasoning be held to infringe any longer the fundamcn~al rights of the petitioners under Art. 31(2) in view of the amenament effected therein by the Con-stitution (Fo11rth Amendment) Act of 1955 which came into force on the 27th April, 1955, these petitions having been filed thereafter, and the petitioners could not be allowed to challenge the validity of the impugned Act on that ground.

Scmble. It is not clear at all that the impugned Act was in conflict with s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, before the advent of the Constitution,

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 193 of 1955.

Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. G. S. Pathak, (Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, with him) for the petitioners in Petition No. 189 of 1955.

Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, for peti-tioners in Petition No. 190 of 1955.

Sri Narain Andley and Rajinder Narain, for peti-tioners in Petitions Nos. 191 to 193 of 1955. T. L. Shevde, Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh (I. N. Shr_off, with him), for respondents in all peti-tions.

1955. September 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS Acre. C. J.-This judgment will dispose of all the five petitions (Nos. 189 to 193 cl. 1955) which have been heard together and which raise the same ques-tion as to the constitutional validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act III of 1948).

The facts are short and simple. Each of the peti-tioners has been carrying on business as stage carr-iage operator for considerable number of years under permits granted under section 58 of the Motor Vehi-cles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) as amended by the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act III of 1948).

Prior to the amendmen,t section 58 of the Motoc Vehicles Act, 1939 was in the following terms:-

"58(1). permit other than temporary permit issued under section 62 shall be effective without renewal for such period, not less than three· years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may in its discretion specify in the permit. Provided that in the case of permit issued or renewed within two years of the commencement of this Act, the permit shall be effective . without renewal

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and othtrs v. The State of Madh,a Pratksh andanotlur

BlliktJji Jf trraln D/uJkras and ot/urs v;

T Ji. Stai. qf Madhya Pradesh andnnothtr

Das .dctg. C. J.

for such period of less than three years as the Provin-cial Government may prescribe.

(2) permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for permit:

Provided that, other conditions Leing equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits".

It will be noticed that under the section as it origi-nally stood the permit granted thereunder was for period· of not less than 3 years and not more than 5 years and permit-holder applying for renewal of the permit had, other things being equal, preference over new applicants for permit over the same route and would ordinarily get such renewal.

Very far reaching amendments were introduced by the C. P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 into the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 .in its applica-tion to Central Provinces and Berar. By section 3 of the amending Act, item (ii) of sub-section ( 1) of sec-tion 43 of the Central Act was replaced by the follow-ing items : . "(ii) fix maximum, minimum or specified fares or freights for stage carriages and public carriers to be applicable throughout the province or within any area or any route within the province, or · (iii) notwithstanding anything contained in sec-tion 58 or section 60 cancel any permit granted under the Act in respect of transport vehicle or class of such permits either generally or in any area specified in the notification :

Provided that no such notification shall be issued before the expiry of period of three months from the date of notification declaring its intention to do so:

Provided further that when any such permit has been cancelled, the permit-holder shall be entitled to such compen5ation as may be provided in the rules; or

(iv) declare that it will engage in the business of road transport service either generally or in any area specified in the notification".

The following sub-section (3) was added after sub-section (2) of section 58 of the Central Act l;>y section 8 of the amending Act, namely:-"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), the Provincial Government may order Regional Transport Authority or the Provincial Transport Authority to limit the period for which any permit or class of permits is issued to any period less than the minimum specified in the Act". Section 9 of the amending Act added after section 58 new section reading as follows :-"58-A. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained the Provincial Government may by order direct any Regional Transport Authority or the pro-vincial Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permit to the Provincial Government or any under-taking in which the Provincial Government is finan-cially interested or permit-holder whose permit has been cancelled under section 43 or any local autho-ri ty specified in the order".

I 95[5 ]Bhikaji Narain ras and othns v Tll4Ststeof Madhya Pradesh and anot!rn Das Act1:. C. J.

l;>y section Bhikaji Narain Dhak-

The result of these amendments was that power was given to the Government ( i) to fix fares or freights throughout the Province or for any area or for any route, (ii) to cancel any permit after the expiry of three months from the date of notification declaring its intention to do so and on payment of such com-pensation as might be provided by the Rules, (iii) to declare i.:s intention to engage in the business of road transport generally or in any area specified in the notification, (iv) to limit the period of the license to period less than the minimum specified in the Act, and (v) to direct the specified Transport Authority to grant permit, inter alia, to the Government or any undertaking in which Government was financially in-terested. It may be mentioned here that in the State of Madhya Pradesh there are two motor transport companies known as C. P. Transport Services Ltd., and Provincial Transport Co. Ltd., in which, at the date of these writ petitions, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India held about 85 per cent. of the share capital. Indeed, since the filing of these petitions the entire undertakings of these

Bhikaji Narain Dhah-as and others v. TM State of Madhya Pradesh and another Das Actg. C. ].

companies have been purchased by the. State of Madhya J;>radesh and the latter are now running the services on some routes for which permits had been granted to them. cursory perusal of the new provisions introduced by the amending Act will show that very extensive powers were conferred on the Provincial Government and the latter were ~uthorised, in exercise of these powers, not only to regulate or control the fares or freights but also to take up the entire motor trans-port business in the province and run it in competi-tion with and even to the exclusion of all motor trans-port operators. It was in exercise of the powers under the newly added sub-section (3) or section 58 that the period of the permit was limited to four months at time. It was in exercise of powers con-ferred on it by the new section 43(1) (iv) that the Notification hereinafter mentioned declaring the in-tention of the Government to take up certain routes was issued. Tt is obvious that these extensive powers were given to the Provincial Government to carry out and implement the policy of nationalisation of the road transport business adopted by the Govern-ment. At the date of the passing of the amending Act (III of 1948) there was no such thing as funda-mental rights of the citizens and it was well within the legislative. competency of the Provincial Legis-lature to enact that law. It has been conceded that the amending Act was, at the date of its passing, perfectly valid piece of legislation. Then came our Constitution on the 26th Janmry 1950. Part III of the Constirution is headed "Funda-mental Rights" and consists of articles 12 to 35. By article 19(1) the Constitution guarantees to all citi-zens the right to freedom under seven heads. Although in article 19(1) all these rights are expressed in un-qualified language, none of them, however, is absolute, for each them is cut down or limited by whichever of the several clause< (2) to (6) of that article is ap-plicable to the particular right. Thus the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business conferred by article 19(1) (g) was

controlled by clause (6) which, prior to its amend-ment to which reference will presently be made, ran as follows :-

" ( 6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public:, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in parti-cular, nothing in the said sub-clau~ shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it presc1lbes or empowers any authority to prescribe, or prevent the State from making any law prescribing or em-powering any authority to prescribe, the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business".

The fundamental rights conferred by articles 14 to 35 are protected by the provisions of article 13 the rele-vant portions of which are as follows:-

"13. (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void". The amending Act ( III of 1948) was, at the com-mencement of the Constitution, an existing law. The new provisions introduced by the Act authorised the Provincial Government to exclude all private motor transport_ operators from the field of transport busi-ness. Prima acie, therefore, it was an infraction of the provisions of article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and would be void under article 13(1), unless this invasion by the Provincial Legislature of the funda-mental right could be justified under the provisions of clause ( 6) of article 19 on the ground that it imposed reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right under article 19(1) (g) in the interests of the general

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and otlw v. Tiu State of Madhya Pradesh and anothtr Das Actg. C. J.

Bltikqji Narain Dhalcras and oth1J1s v. The State of MadhJa Pradesh and another Dat Aclg. C.Jo

public. In Shagir Ahmad v. The State of U.P. d: Others(') it was held by this Court that if the word "restriction" was taken and read in the sense of limita-tion and not extinction then clearly the law there under review which, like the amending Act now be-fore us, sanctioned the imposition of total prohibition on the right to carry on the business of motor transport operator could not be justified under article 19(6). It was further held in that case that if the word "restriction" in clause (6) of article 19 of the 'Constitution, as in other clauses of that article, were to be taken in certain circumstances to include prohi-bition as well, even then, having regard to the nature of the trade which was perfectly innocuous and to the number of persons who depended upon business of this kind for their livelihood, the impugned law could not be justified as reasonable. In this view of the matter, there is no escape from the conclusion that the amending Act, in so far as it was inconsistent with article 19(1) (g) read with clause (6) of that arti-cle, became. under article 13(1), void "to the extent of such inconsistency" and if there were nothing else in the case the matter would have been .completely covered by the decision of this Court in that case.On the 18th June 1951, however, was passed the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. By stc· tion 3(1) of that Act for clause (2) of article 19 new sub-clause was substituted which was expressly made retrospective. Clause (6) of article 19 was also amended. That clause, so amended, now reads as follows:-"(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State . from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in parti-cular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of anv existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,-(!) [1955] I S. C.R. 707.

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by corpo-

ration owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise". It will be noticed that clause (6), as amended, was not made retrospective as the amended clause (2) had been made. The contention of the respondents before us is that although the amending Act, on the autho-rity of our decision in Shagir A4mad's case (supra), became on and from the 26th January, 1950 void as against the ciLizens to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of article 19(1) (g), nevertheless, after the 18th June 1951 when clause (6) was amend-ed by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 the amending Act ceased to be inconsistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19( I) (g) read with the amended clause (6) of that article, because that clause, as it now stands, permits the creation by law of St:ite monopoly in respect, inter alia, of motor transport business and it became operative again even as against the citizens. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the law having become void for unconstitutionality was dead and could not be vita-lised by subsequent amendment of the Constitution removing the constitutional objection, upless it was re-enacted, and reference is made to Prof· Coolev's work on Constitutional Limitations, Vol. I, p. 3.84 Note referred to in our judgment in Shagir Ahmad's case (supra) and to similar other authorities. The question thus raised by the respondents, however, was not raised by the learned Advocate-General in that case, although the notification was published by the U. P. Government on the 25th March 1953 and the proposed scheme was published on the 7th April, 1953, i.e., long after the Constitution (First Amend-ment) Act, 1951 had been passed. This question was not considered by this Court in Shagir Ahmad's case, for it was there conceded (see p. 720 of the report) that the validity of the U. P. Act which, in this res-

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and otlurs v. The Stale of Madhya Pradesh and anot/ur Das Actg. C. J.

Bhikoji Nor in Dhakras and others v. Ti1' State •f MadhJa PraJesh and another DOI Adg. C. J.

pcct, was similar to the C. P. & Berar Act now under consideration, was not to be decided by applying the provisions of the amended clause (6). Nor was this problem raised before or considered by this Court in Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay('). We, therefore, conceive it to be open to us to go into the new question that has now been mooted before us and to consider what effect the amended clause ( 6) has on the impugned Act. This involves question of construction of article 13 of the Constitution. The meaning to be given to the word "void" in article 13 is no longer res integra, for the matter stands concluded by the majority decision of this Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay('). We hJve to apply the ratio decidendi in that case to the facts of the present case. The impugned Act was an existing law at the time when the Constitu-tion came into force. That existing law imposed on the exercise of the right guaranteed to the citizens of India by article 19(1) (g) restrictions which could not be justified as reasonable under clause ( 6) as it then stood and consequently under article 13(1) that exist-ing law becamr void "to the extent of such inconsist-ency". As explained in Keshavan Madhava Menon's case (supra) the law became void not in toto or for all purposes or for all times or for all persons but only "to the extent of such inconsistency'', that is to say, to the extent it became inconsistent with the provisions of• Part III which conferred the funda-mental rights on the c1t1zens. It did not become void independently of the existence of the rights guaranteed by Part III. In other words, on and after the commencement of the Constitution the existing law, as result of its becoming inconsistent with the provisions of article 19(1) (g) read with clause (6) as it then stood, could not be permitted to stand in the way of the exercise of that fundamental right. Article 13(1) by reason of its language cannot be read as having obliterated the entire operation of the in-consistent law or having wiped it out altogether from

(1) [1955] 1 S. C.R. 613.

(2) [1951] S. C.R. 228.

the statute book. Such law existed for all past tran-sactions and for enforcement of rights and liabilities accrued before the date of the Constitution, as was held in Keshavan Madhava Menon's case. The law continued in force, even after the commencement of the Constitution, with respect to persons who were not citizens and could not claim the fundamental right. In short, article 13(1) had the effect of nulli-fying or rendering the existing law which had become inconsistent with article 19(1) (g) read with clause (6) as it then stopd ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect only with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right on and after the date of the commencement of the Constitution. There-fore. between the 26th January 1950 and the 18th June 1951 the impugned Act could not stand in the way of the exercise of the fundamental right of citizen under article 19 (1) (g). The true .position is that the impugned law became, a.~ it were, eclipsed, for the time being, by the fudamental right. The effect of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from all blemish or infirmity. If that were not so, then it is not intelligible what "existing law" could have been sought to be saved from the opera-tion of article 19(1) (g) by the amended clause (6) in so far as it sanctioned the creation of State mono-poly, for ex hypothesi, all existing laws creating such monopoly had already become void at the date of the commencement of the Constitution in view of clause (6) as it then stood. The American authorities refer only to post-Constitution laws which were inconsis-tent with the provisions of the Constitution. Such laws never came to life but were still born as it were. The American authorities, therefore, cannot fully apply to pre-Constitution laws which were perfectly valid before the Constitution. But apart from this distinction between pre-Constitution and post-Consti-tution laws on which, however, we need not rest our decision, it must be held that these American auth-orities can have no application to our Constitution. All laws, existing of future, which are inconsistent

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and others v. The State of Madhya Pradtsh and another Das Actg. C. J.

Bb.ikoji Narain DhaMas and others v. The State of Mad~?a Pradesh and another Das Actg. C. ].

with the provisions of Part III of our Constitution are, by the express provision of article 13, rendered void "to the extent of such inconsistency''.. Such laws were not dead for all purposes. They existed for the purposes of pre-Constitution rights and liabilities and they remailled operative, even after the Constitution, as against non-citizens. It is only as against the citi-zens that they remained in dormant or moribund condition; In our judgment, after the amendment of clause (6) of article 19 on the 18th June 1951, the im-. pugned Act ceased to be unconstitutional and became revivified and enforceable agaii1st citizens as well as against non-atJzens. It is true that as the amended clause (6) was not made retrospective the impugned Act could have no operation as against citizePs bet-ween the 26th January 1950 and the 18th June 1951 and no rights and obligations could be founded on the provisions of the impugned Act during the said period whereas the amended clause (2) by reason of its be-ing expressly made retrospective had effect even dur-ing that period. But after the amendment of clause (6) the impugned Act immediately became fully ope-rative even as against the citizens. The notification declaring the intention of the State to take over the bus routes to the exclusion of all other motor trans-port operators was published on the 4th February 1955 when it was perfectly constitutional for the State to do so. In our judgment the contentions put for-ward by the respondents as to the effect of the Con-stitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 are well-founded and the objections urged against them by the petitioners are untenable and must be negatived. The petitioners then contend that assuming that the impugned Act cannot be questioned on the ground of infringement of their fundamental right under article 19(1) (g) read with clause (6) of that article, there has been another infraction of their funda-mental right in that they have been deprived of their property, namely, the right to ply motor vehicles for gain whim is an interest in commercial undertaking and, therefore, the impugned Act does conflict with the prq.v~ns of article · 31(2) of the Constitution and

again they rely on our decision in Shagir Ahmad's case.

Here, too, if there were nothing else in the case this co.Ptention may have been unanswerable. But unfor-tunately for the petitioners there is the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 which came into force on the 27th April, 1955. By section 2 of that Act article 31 of the Constitution was amended and for clause (2) of that article the following clauses were substituted:-

" (2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for public purpose and save by authority of law which provides for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned and either fixes the amount of the compensation or speci-fies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given; and no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not a<lequ;ite. (2-A) Wl:ere law does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to corporation owned or controlled by the State, it shall not be deemed to pro-vide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that it deprives any person of his property". Article 31-A of the Constitution was also amended. There can be no question that the amended provi-sions, if they apply, save the impugned law, for it does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property and cannot, there-fore, be deemed to provide for the compulsory acquisi-tion or requisitioning of any property. But the peti-tioners contend, as they did with regard to the Con-stitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, that these amendments which came into force on the 27th April 1955 are not retrospective and can have no applica-tion to the present case. It is quite true that the im-pugned Act became inconsistent with article 31 as soon as the Constitution came into force on the 26th January 1950 as held by this Co1,1rt in Shagir Ahmad's case (supra) and continued to be so inconsistent right

B/aikaji Narain Dhakras and other&· v. The Stau of Madhya PraJnli and another Das Actg. C.J.

1955 Blai!oji Narain DluWas and others v. Thi Stat• of Madhya Pr!Uksh and another Das Act~. C. ].

up to the 27th April 1955 and, therefore, under article 13(1) became void "to the extent of such inconsist-ency". Nevertheless, that inconsistency was removed on and from the 27th April 1955 by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. The present writ petitions were filed on the 27th May 1955, exactly month after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 came into force, and, on parity of reason-ing hereinbefore mentioned, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the constitutionality of the impugned Act on and from the 27th April 1955 and this objection also cannot prevail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to raise the question as to the invalidity of the impugned Act even before the advent of the Constitution. Prior to the Constitution, when there were no fundamental rights, section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which corresponds. to article 31 had been con-strued by the Federal Court in Rao Bahadur Kunwar Lal Singh v. The Central Provinces and Berar (') and in other cases referred to in Rajah of Bobbili v. The State of Madras(•) and it was held by the Federal Court that the word "acquisition" occurring in section 299 had the limited meaning .of actual transference of owner-ship a..'ld not the wide ·· meaning of deprivation of any kind .that has been· given by this Court in s,,bodh Gopal Bose's case (') to _that wo.rd acquisition appear-ing in article 31 (2) in the light of the other provisions . of the Constitution. It is, therefore, not clear at all that the impugned Act was in conflict with section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Besides, this objection was not taken or even hinted at in the petitions and cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.