Judgement

PATANJALI SASTRI, C.J.I. : I concur in the judgment which my learned brother Mukherjea is about to deliver, but I wish to add a few words in view of the important constitutional issue involved.

2. The facts are simple. The appellants obtained a settlement of about 200 bighas of land in a village known as Sathi Farm in Bettiah Estate, in Bihar, then and ever since in the management of the Court of Wards on behalf of the disqualified proprietress who is the second respondent in this appeal. The lands were settled at the prevailing rate of rent but the salami or premium payable was fixed at half the usual rate as a concession to the appellants who are said to be distant relations of the proprietress. The appellants paid the salami and entered into possession of the lands on the 2nd November 1946 and have since been paying the rents regularly. On the 13th June 1950 the Bihar Legislature passed an Act called the Sathi Lands (Restoration) Act, 1950. The genesis of this legislation is thus explained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, the first respondent herein.

"Report against the settlement of these lands with the petitioners as well as some other lands to Sri Prajapati Mishra and the unlawful manner in which these settlements were brought about, was carried to the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, which body, after making such enquiry, as it thought fit, came to the conclusion that the settlement of these lands with the petitioners was contrary to the provisions of law and public policy and recommended that steps should be taken by the State of Bihar to have these lands restored to the Bettiah Estate. In pursuance thereof a request was made to the petitioners and to the said Prajapati Mishra to return the lands to Bettiah Estate. While Sri Prajapati Mishra returned the lands settled with him, the petitioners refused to do so.

3. The statement of objects and reasons of the Sathi Lands (Resteration) Bill runs thus:

"As it has been held that the settlement of Sathi lands in the District of Champaran under the Court of Wards with Sri Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and Sri Ram Rekha Prasad Narayan Sahi is contrary to the provisions of the law and as Sri Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and Sri Ram Rekha Narayan Sahi have refused to return the lands to the Bettiah Estate, Government have decided to enact a law to festore these lands to the Betriah Estate."

4. The impugned Act consists of three sections. Section 2 (1) declares that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force", the settlement obtained by the appellants is "null and void" and that

"no party to the settlement or his successor-in-interest shall be deemed to have acquired any right or incurred any liability thereunder."

Sub-section (2) provides that the appellants and their successor-in-interest

"shall quit possession of the said land from the date of commencement of this Act and if they fail to do so, the Collector of Champaran shall eject them and restore the lands to the possession of the Bettiah Wards Estate."

Sub-section (3) provides for the refund of the amount of salami money and the cost of improvement, if any, to the lessees by the Estate on restoration to it of the lands in question.

5. In the "case" lodged in this Court for the State of Bihar, the legislation is sought to be justified and its validity maintained on the following grounds:

"It is well settled that a Legislature with plenary powers so long as it enacts laws within the ambit of its powers, is competent to enact a law which may be applicable generally to society or to an individual or a class of individuals only . .. It is submitted that grants of the lands belonging to the Bettiah Estate made by the Court of Wards were of doubtful validity : hence they have been dealt with by the impugned Act... No evidence has been adduced by the appellants, except a bare allegation, which has not been substantiated, that about 2000 acres of land were settled