Judgement

S. R. Das, CJI. - It is intended by this judgment to dispose of both the appeals mentioned above. The appeals have come up before us in circumstances which may shortly be recounted.

2. On 6-12-1954 the appellant Raja Bhairabendra Narain Bhup of Bijni filed T. S. No. 27 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri praying, inter alia, for a declaration that Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act 18 of 1951) as amended by Assam Act 6 of 1954 was not validly passed, was not law at all and was unconstitutional, ultra vires and void and for a declaration that the impugned Act was, at any rate, inapplicable to the plaintiff s properties and the Notification purporting to be issued under S. 3(1) of the impugned Act in respect of the plaintiff s properties was illegal, ultra vires and void.

3. On 23-12-1954 the appellant Sm. Bedabala Debi wife of Sri Nripendra Narain Choudhury as the Trustee of Chapor Trust estate filed T. S. No. 34 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri challenging the constitutionality of the same Act. In this suit there was no contention, as there was in the Raja s suit that the Act, if valid, did not apply to the estate of which she was the Trustee.

4. By two several orders made under Article 228 by the Assam High Court on 21-1-1955 and 16-2-1955 respectively the said two suits were transferred to the High Court and renumbered as T. S. No. 1 of 1955 and T. S. No. 3 of 1955 respectively. The State of Assam duly filed its written statements in both the suits controverting the contentions set forth in the respective plaints.

5. The High Court framed 11 issues in the Raja s T. S. No. 1 of 1955. The issues common to the two suits were as follows :-

(1) Whether the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act 18 of 1951) and its amendments are within the competence of the State Legislature and whether they were enacted according to law?

(2) Whether the Notification No. Rt. 24/54/21 dated 19-7-1954 published in the Assam Gazette dated 21-7-1954 and issued under the Act aforesaid is valid?

(3) Whether the said Act and its amendments infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under Art. 31(2) and Art. 14 of the Constitution; or whether the legislation is protected under Art. 31-A and 31(4) of the Constitution?

(4) Whether the provisions of the Act and its amendments, can be enforced against the properties in suit, even if the legislation is held to be valid?

(5) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

6. The parties through their respective counsel agreed that the issues of law which did not depend upon adjudication of disputed facts should be heard and decided first, leaving the other issues, if necessary, to be dealt with later.

7. The two cases were heard by a Full Bench of the Assam High Court. The learned Judges answered issues 1 and 3 against the plaintiffs although not for identical reasons. They also answered issue 2 against the plaintiffs, subject, as to the Raja, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 1 of 1955, to the answer to issue 4. On the last mentioned issue the Bench held that the Act and the Notification being valid they could be enforced against Sm. Bedabala, the plaintiff in T. S. No. of 1955.

As regards the Raja, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 1 of 1955, the Bench held that as the question whether the properties of the Raja sought to have been notified were "estate" within the meaning of the impugned Act was one of fact, issue 4 could only be decided, as between the Raja and the defendant State, upon evidence led in the case.

In the result the Bench dismissed Sm. Bedabala s T. S. No. 3 of 1955 with costs and directed the records of the Raja s T. S. No. 1 of 1955 to be sent down to the Court below for trial and disposal on the determination of issue 4 and other issues. In view of the importance of the question involved in the issues dealt with by the Bench they gave leave 506 under Article 132 to