Constitution of India, arts. 19 (1) (f) & 31-Scope ofCorrelation between art. 19 (1) (1) and art. 31-Clauses (1) and (2) of art. 31, whether mutually exclusive-"Deprivation"-"Acquisition"-Taking possession of"-Meanings of-Bengal !And Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act VII of 1950), s. 7-Whether ultra vires art. 19 (1) (1) and art. 31.

The first respondent B purchased a Touzi in 24-Parganas Collectorate at a revenue sale held on 9th January, 1942. As such purchaser he acquired under s. 37 of the Bengal Revenue , Sales Act, 1859, the right to avoid and annul all under tenures and forthwith to eject all under-tenants" with certain exceptions which are not material here. In exercise of that right he gave notices of ejectment and brought a suit in 1946 to evict certain under-tenants including the second respondent herein and to recover possession of the lands. The suit was decreed against the second respondent who preferred an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas, contending that his under-tenure came within one of the exceptions referred to in s. 37. When the appeal was pending, the Bill which was later passed as the West Bengal Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950, .was introduced in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on 23rd March, 1950. It would appear, according to the "statement of objects and reasons" annexed to the Bill, that great hardship was being caused to a large section of the people by the application of s. 37 of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859, in the urban areas and particularly in Calcutta and its suburbs where "the present phenomenal increase in land values has supplied the necessary incentive to speculative purchasers in exploiting this provision (section 37) of the law for unwarranted large scale eviction" and it was, therefore, considered necessary to enlarge the scope of protection already given by the section to certain categories of tenants with due safeguards for the security of Government revenue. The Bill was eventually passed as the amending Act and it came into force on 15th March, 1950. It substituted by s. 4 the new s. 37 in place of the original s. 37 and it provided by s. 7 that all pending suits, appeals and other proceedings which had not already resulted in delivery of possession, shall abate. Thereupon B contending that s. 7 was void as abridging his fundamental rights under art. 19(1)(f) and art. 31 moved the High Court under art. 228 to withdraw the pending appeal and to determine the constitutional issue raised by him The appeal was accordingly withdrawn and the case was heard by Trevor Harries C.J. and Banerjee who by separate but concurring Judgements declared unconstitutional and void. They held that B's right to annul understatements and evict under tenants being a vested right acquired by him under his purchase before s.37 was amended, the retrospective deprivation of that right by s.7 of the amending Act without any abatement of the price paid by him at the revenue sale was an infringement of his fundamental right under art. 19 (1)(f) to hold property with all the rights required under his purchase, and as such deprivation was not a reasonable restriction on the exercise of his vested right; s 7 was not saved by cl. (5) of that article and was void. The State of West Bengal preferred the present appeal to the Supreme Court: