which such owners should be compensated for their loss. …While certain powers may be granted in order to be exercised in favour of certain persons who are intended to be benefited by their exercise, and on that account may well be regarded as coupled with a duty to exercise them when an appropriate occasion for their exercise arises, the power granted to a legislature to make a law with respect to any matter cannot be brought under that category, It cannot possibly have been intended that the legislature should be under an obligation to make a law in exercise of that power, for no obligation of that kind can be enforced by the court against a legislative body.”
(emphasis supplied)
140. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal,[1] while upholding the constitutional validity of the Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, after noticing the declaration made in Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, as envisaged by Entry 54 of the Union List, it was held that exercise and existence of power cannot be conflated:
“24. In the two cases discussed above no provision of the Central Act 67 of 1957 was under consideration by this Court. Moreover, power to acquire for purposes of development and regulation has not been exercised by Act 67 of 1957. The existence of power of Parliament to legislate on this topic as an incident of exercise of legislative power on another subject is one thing. Its actual exercise is another. It is difficult to see how the field of acquisition could become occupied by a Central Act in the same way as it had been in the West Bengal case even before Parliament legislates to acquire land in a State. Atleast until Parliament has so legislated as it was shewn to have done by the statute considered by this Court in the case from West Bengal, the field is free for State legislation falling under the express provisions of entry 42 of List III.”
(emphasis supplied)
90
- ↑ (1977) 1 SCC 340
