rajiv sarin vs state of uttarakhand

8/18/2019 Rajiv Sarin vs State of Uttarakhand

1/12

Memorandum on behalf of the Appellant

IN THE HONOURABLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the matter of

RAJIV SARIN.......................................................................Appellant

v.

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND..........................................Respondent

Counsel on behal o Appellant

N!"v!#alp Shu#la

Se$este" IV Se%t!on C

Page 1


2/12


3/12


+. Cal4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Cal%utta

,. O"!44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 O"!ssa

/. Ra544444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Ra5asthan

2. V. 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444Ve"sus

3. SCC444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444Sup"e$e Cou"t Cases

LIST OF CASES

&. I. R. Coelho v. State o Ta$!l Nadu&

*. Ka!se"(I(H!nd 67 'td. v. Nat!onal Te8t!le Co"po"at!on 69aha"asht"a No"th7*

). 9. Ka"unan!dh! v. Un!on o Ind!a)

LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED

&. The Const!tut!on o Ind!a: &;,<

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1 (2007) 2 SCC 1

2 (2002) 8 SCC 182

3 (1979) 3 SCC 431 page 443!444

Page 3


4/12


The %ounsel on behal o the et!t!one"s app"oa%hes the Honou"able Sup"e$e Cou"t o Ind!a

unde" A"t!%le &)* o the Const!tut!on o Ind!a: &;,


5/12


&. The appellant=s athe" Sh"! . N. Sa"!n had !n the 0ea" &;+, a%>u!"ed p"op"!eta"0 "!1ht

!n an Estate #no?n as @en! Tal Fee S!$ple Estate s!tuated !n a"1ana Chandpu":

Tehs!l Ka"an "a0a1: D!st"!%t Cha$ol!: Utta"a#hand 6he"e!nate" "ee""ed to as the

p"ope"t0 !n >uest!on7 ?h!%h %o$p"!sed o la"1e t"a%ts o o"est spann!n1 !n and

a"ound &/uest!on. @0 a Baette Not!!%at!on dated *&st De%e$be": &;22 unde" Se%t!on +(A

o the Ku$aun and Utta"a#hand a$!nda"! Abol!t!on and 'and Reo"$s A%t: &;/<

6he"e!nate" "ee""ed to as KUA'R A%t7 as a$ended b0 the U.. A%t No. &, o

&;23: the "!1hts: t!tle and !nte"est o eve"0 h!sseda" !n "espe%t o o"est land s!tuated !n

the spe%!!ed a"eas %eased ?!th ee%t "o$


6/12


SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the i!"#$e% A&t i' (i)*+ti(e ), Arti&*e 1-

Page #


7/12


It !s hu$bl0 sub$!tted that the !$pu1ned A%t !s v!olat!ve o A"t!%le &+ o the Const!tut!on

s!n%e !t !n%o"po"ated the te"$ Gp"!vate o"est and se!ed the appellants land ?!thout

p"ov!d!n1 o" an0 %o$pensat!on ?hatsoeve".

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

&. THE IMPUGNED ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 1-

Page 7


8/12


It !s hu$bl0 sub$!tted that the Utta"a#hand a$!nda"! Abol!t!on and 'and Reo"$s A%t ?as

ena%ted !n &;/


9/12


Ate" pass!n1 o the Const!tut!on 6Fo"t0 Fo"th7 A$end$ent A%t &;23 ?h!%h deleted A"t!%le

&;6&767 and A"t!%le )& "o$ the Const!tut!on and !nt"odu%ed A"t!%le )u!s!t!on and "e>u!s!t!on!n1 o p"ope"t0.

It !s to be noted that !n the Const!tut!onal @en%h de%!s!on !n I. R. C)e*h) (. St+te ), T+i*

N+%"/: th!s Cou"t has held that the la?s added to the N!nth S%hedule o the Const!tut!on: b0

v!olat!n1 the %onst!tut!onal a$end$ents ate" *+.&*.&;2): ?ould be a$enable to 5ud!%!al

"ev!e? on the 1"ound l!#e bas!% st"u%tu"e do%t"!ne.

" (2007) 2 SCC 1

Page 9


10/12


It !s %ontended that the a%t!on ta#en b0 the "espondents $ust sat!s0 the t?!n p"!n%!ples v!.

publ!% pu"pose and ade>uate %o$pensat!on. It has been %ontended that ?heneve" the"e !s

a"b!t"a"!ness b0 the State !n !ts a%t!on: the p"ov!s!ons o A"t!%le &+: &; and *& ?ould 1et

att"a%ted and su%h a%t!on !s l!able to be st"u%# do?n. It !s sub$!tted that the KUA'R A%t

does not p"ov!de o" an0 p"!n%!ple o" 1u!del!nes o" the !8at!on o the %o$pensat!on a$ount

!n a s!tuat!on ?hen no a%tual !n%o$e !s be!n1 de"!ved "o$ the p"ope"t0 !n >uest!on.

The p"esent %ase !s a %ase o pa0$ent o no %o$pensat!on= at all. In the %ase at hand: the

o"est land ?h!%h ?as vested on the State b0 ope"at!on o la? %annot be sa!d to be non(

p"odu%t!ve o" unp"odu%t!ve b0 an0 st"et%h o !$a1!nat!on. The p"ope"t0 !n >uest!on ?as

de!n!tel0 a p"odu%t!ve asset. That be!n1 so: the %"!te"!a to dete"$!ne poss!ble !n%o$e on the

date o vest!n1 ?ould be to as%e"ta!n su%h %o$pensat!on pa!d to s!$!la"l0 s!tuated o?ne"s o

ne!1hbo"!n1 o"ests on the date o vest!n1. Even othe"?!se: "evenue autho"!t0 %an al?a0s

$a#e an est!$at!on o poss!ble !n%o$e on the date o vest!n1 ! the p"ope"t0 !n >uest!on had

been e8plo!ted b0 the appellants and then %al%ulate %o$pensat!on on the bas!s the"eo !n

te"$s o Se%t!ons &36&7 6%%7 and &;6&7 6b7 o KUA'R A%t.

It !s hu$ble sub$!ss!on that a?a"d!n1 no %o$pensat!on att"a%ts the v!%e o !lle1al dep"!vat!on

o p"ope"t0 even !n the l!1ht o the p"ov!s!ons o the A%t and the"eo"e a$enable to ?"!t

5u"!sd!%t!on.

That be!n1 so: the o$!ss!on o the Se%t!on );6&7 6e7 6!!7 o the UA'R A%t &;,< as a$ended

!n &;23 !s o no %onse>uen%e s!n%e the UA'R A%t leaves no %ho!%e to the State othe" than

to pa0 %o$pensat!on o" the p"!vate o"ests a%>u!"ed b0 !t !n a%%o"dan%e ?!th the $andate o

the la?.

In the %ase 0+i'erIHi$% 2P3 Lt%. (. N+ti)$+* Te4ti*e C)r!)r+ti)$ 2M+h+r+'htr+ N)rth35

th!s Cou"t $ade !t %lea" that the essent!al !n1"ed!ents o A"t!%le *,+6*7 a"e 6&7 $ent!on!n1 o

the ent"0Ment"!es ?!th "espe%t to one o the $atte"s enu$e"ated !n the Con%u""ent '!stP 6*7

stat!n1 "epu1nan%0 to the p"ov!s!ons o an ea"l!e" la? $ade b0 a"l!a$ent and the State la?

and "easons o" hav!n1 su%h la?P 6)7 the"eate" !t !s "e>u!"ed to be "ese"ved o" %ons!de"at!on

o the "es!dentP and 6+7 "e%e!pt o the assent o the "es!dent.

# (2002) 8 SCC 182

Page 10


11/12


Const!tut!on !s unde"stood as "e>u!"!n1 the ul!ll$ent o a T"!ple test "e!te"ated b0 the

Const!tut!onal @en%h !n M. 0+r"$+$i%hi (. U$i)$ ), I$%i+6 : ?h!%h "eads as ollo?s(

It is well settled that the presumption is always in fa!our of the constitutionality of a statute

and the onus lies on the person assailing the ct to pro!e that it is unconstitutional . "!$a

a%!e: the"e does not appea" to us to be an0 !n%ons!sten%0 bet?een the State A%t and the

Cent"al A%ts. @eo"e an0 "epu1nan%0 %an a"!se: the ollo?!n1 %ond!t!ons $ust be sat!s!ed

&. That the"e !s a %lea" and d!"e%t !n%ons!sten%0 bet?een the Cent"al A%t and the State A%t.

*. That su%h an !n%ons!sten%0 !s absolutel0 !""e%on%!lable.

). That the !n%ons!sten%0 bet?een the p"ov!s!ons o the t?o A%ts !s o su%h natu"e as to b"!n1

the t?o A%ts !nto d!"e%t %oll!s!on ?!th ea%h othe" and a s!tuat!on !s "ea%hed ?he"e !t !s

!$poss!ble to obe0 the one ?!thout d!sobe0!n1 the othe".

In othe" ?o"ds: the t?o le1!slat!ons $ust %ove" the sa$e !eld.It !s hu$bl0 sub$!tted that the

KUA'R A%t deals ?!th a1"a"!an "eo"$s and !n the %onte8t deals ?!th the p"!vate o"ests:

th!s vests ?!th the State and ?ould the"eo"e be $ana1ed b0 the Boan Sabha and The Ind!an

Fo"est A%t: &;*2 ?h!%h !s the e8!st!n1 Cent"al la? deals ?!th o"est pol!%0 and $ana1e$ent:

and the"eo"e the0 have a s!$!la" ope"at!ve !eld.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7 (1979) 3 SCC 431 page 443!444

Page 11


12/12


he"eo"e !n the l!1ht o a%ts stated: !ssues "a!sed: a"1u$ents advan%ed and autho"!t!es %!ted.

Th!s Honou"able Sup"e$e Cou"t o Ind!a $a0 be pleased to pass a de%!s!on and de%la"e that

&. The !$pu1ned A%t !s v!olat!ve o A"t!%le &+

*. Ade>uate Co$pensat!on be p"ov!ded.

). The appeal !s allo?ed.

O" pass an0 othe" o"de" ?h!%h %an be dee$ed !t !n the sp!"!t o 5ust!%e: e>u!t0 and 1ood

%ons%!en%e.

All o ?h!%h !s hu$bl0 sub$!tted beo"e the Honou"able Sup"e$e Cou"t o Ind!a.

Date+th Ap"!l *

rajiv sarin vs state of uttarakhand

Documents