A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment in D.K. Nabhirajiah v. The State of Mysore and Others ([1952] SCR 746) presents a significant constitutional analysis of property rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Indian Constitution. It considers the legality of allotment and forced possession of private property under the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, predating the enforcement of the Constitution. The petitioner, a landlord, challenged the State’s allotment of his house to a third party for a children’s school, asserting that it violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court examined the temporal applicability of constitutional rights and affirmed that since the order of allotment was issued prior to 26 January 1950, constitutional protections could not retroactively invalidate the administrative action. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the allotment did not constitute State acquisition under Article 31(2) and fell within the regulatory powers granted under the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The Court dismissed the claim that the Controller’s actions lacked legal authority or violated fundamental rights. This ruling cemented the principle that pre-Constitution administrative acts remain enforceable unless expressly invalidated by subsequent law and highlighted the limited retrospective application of fundamental rights.

Keywords: Property Rights, Article 31, Article 19(1)(f), Pre-Constitutional Law, Housing Control, Allotment, Retrospective Operation

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
D.K. Nabhirajiah v. The State of Mysore and Others

ii) Case Number
Petition No. 297 of 1951

iii) Judgement Date
26 May 1952

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Patanjali Sastri C.J., Meher Chand Mahajan, Mukherjea, Das, and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar

vii) Citation
[1952] SCR 746

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 32, 19(1)(f), and 31(2) of the Constitution of India

• Clause (bb) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules, 1939

• Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Property Law, Public Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitioner, D.K. Nabhirajiah, a merchant and property owner, approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 32 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights. The dispute centered on his residential property, House No. 291, located at Fifth Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore. The premise had been allotted to a third party, Sri Aswathanarayana Rao, under the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, by the House Rent Controller prior to the enforcement of the Constitution of India. The allotment aimed to utilize the house for a children’s school named “Balamandira.” The petitioner challenged the allotment and subsequent possession as illegal, discriminatory, and violative of his right to property. The judgment reflects the tension between regulatory control for public welfare and individual rights to property at the threshold of India’s constitutional governance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner owned the disputed house in Bangalore, which became vacant on 1 September 1949. He reported the vacancy to the Rent Controller on the following day, stating he intended to use the house for setting up his son’s electrical goods business. However, the third respondent, Aswathanarayana Rao, also requested allotment of the premises for a children’s institution. On 13 September 1949, the Controller allotted the house to Rao. The petitioner’s appeals to the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner of Labour, and the Government of Mysore failed, despite a temporary stay by the appellate authority.

On 11 April 1950, after the High Court of Mysore dismissed his challenge under Section 45 of the Mysore Specific Relief Act and under Article 226 of the Constitution, forcible possession was taken by the authorities. The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the allotment and possession orders, citing violations of Articles 19(1)(f), 31(2), and 14 of the Constitution.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the allotment order violated Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution.
ii) Whether the Controller had authority to allot premises to a private individual.
iii) Whether there was discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
iv) Whether clause (bb) of Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules permitted such allotments.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the allotment of the premises to a private party infringed Article 31(2), as it amounted to compulsory acquisition of private property without compensation. They argued the action lacked a valid public purpose and was thus unconstitutional post-26 January 1950[1].

They further contended that Article 19(1)(f), which guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, had been breached, since the petitioner was forcibly deprived of his possession without following any constitutional procedure[2].

Another important submission was that the Controller lacked authority under the unamended Control Order to allot houses for private individuals. Even if an amendment existed, it could not retrospectively validate actions contrary to constitutional rights[3].

Additionally, the petitioner submitted that the amendment of 4 May 1949 adding the words “or for the occupation of any individual” to clause 3(2) of the Control Order was ultra vires and inconsistent with the empowering provision in Rule 81(2)(bb) of the Defence of India Rules, which was intended for ensuring availability of accommodations essential to public services[4].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the order of allotment was made prior to 26 January 1950. Hence, the petitioner could not claim violation of Fundamental Rights, which only became enforceable after the Constitution came into effect[5].

The State contended that Article 13(1) did not invalidate laws retrospectively. Therefore, actions legally taken under valid laws before the Constitution remained enforceable. The case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay ([1951] SCR 228) was cited to affirm this principle[6].

It was also submitted that the allotment did not constitute acquisition under Article 31(2). The act was regulatory, not proprietary, and thus did not require compensation. The landlord lost possession due to statutory operation, not State acquisition[7].

Furthermore, they argued that clause (bb) of Rule 81(2) empowered the Government to regulate letting of property to ensure essential housing availability. The phrase “regulating letting or sub-letting” was interpreted broadly to include such allotments, even for private individuals[8].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 32, Article 19(1)(f), and Article 31(2) – Constitution of India
ii) Rule 81(2)(bb) – Defence of India Rules, 1939
iii) Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948 (as amended)
iv) Section 45 – Mysore Specific Relief Act
v) Article 13(1) – Constitution of India

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that the impugned allotment orders were valid since they were issued before the Constitution came into effect, and therefore not subject to Article 31(2) or Article 19(1)(f). The loss of possession was a result of valid administrative action under pre-Constitution law[9].

The taking of possession on 11 April 1950 was a mere consequence of earlier lawful orders. Hence, no constitutional violation could arise retroactively. The judgment reaffirmed that constitutional rights are not retrospective unless expressly stated[10].

Further, there was no acquisition of property by the State. The transaction resulted in a statutory tenancy, and not an expropriation. Hence, Article 31(2) was inapplicable[11].

The Court also upheld the amended clause (2) of the Control Order, which permitted allotment to “any individual.” It interpreted the enabling power under Rule 81(2)(bb) broadly and rejected the narrow interpretation urged by the petitioner[12].

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court remarked that if every landlord could claim self-occupation to avoid allotment, the housing control scheme would become unworkable. The regulatory mechanism must be construed in the broader public interest[13].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Pre-Constitution actions cannot be challenged under the Constitution unless expressly made retrospective.

• Allotment under a valid statutory order does not amount to acquisition under Article 31(2).

• Courts must interpret regulatory powers under emergency legislation like Rule 81(2)(bb) with reference to their object, i.e., maintaining essential services and supplies.

• The term “regulating letting” includes the authority to direct occupation even by private parties.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment solidified the doctrinal understanding that constitutional rights are not retroactive unless the Constitution or a statute provides so. It also emphasized the distinction between regulatory control and eminent domain. The State’s action, in this case, fell within its regulatory authority and not under acquisition, hence no compensation was warranted. This reasoning continues to guide Indian jurisprudence in distinguishing between property control measures and acquisition laws, especially in post-emergency and pre-constitutional contexts. The case also stands out for interpreting Article 13(1) and applying the landmark ruling in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay to reinforce constitutional temporality.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay, [1951] SCR 228
[2] State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, [1954] SCR 587
[3] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] SCR 88

b. Important Statutes Referred

[4] Constitution of India, Article 31(2), 19(1)(f), 13(1), 32
[5] Defence of India Rules, 1939 – Rule 81(2)(bb)
[6] Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948
[7] Supplies and Services (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947
[8] Mysore Specific Relief Act, Section 45