1. Validity of retrospective amendments to land reforms legislation vesting the right to hold fairs in the State from ex-intermediaries now holding land as occupancy raiyats. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 210
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th April, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
State of Bihar and others, Appellants
Versus
Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 27 of 1960 with 574, 92, 411 and 285 of 1960, 351 of 1959 and Petns. Nos. 20 and 106 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, Govt. Advocate, Bihar (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with him), for Appellants (In C. A. No. 27/. 60); Mr. D. Gipardhan, Advocate, for Respondents 1-7; Mr. K. K. Sinha, Advocate, for appellant (In C. A No. 574/60); Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate, for Respondent; Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate, for Appellants (In C. A. No. 92/60); Mr. D. Gobardhan, Advocate, for Respondents; Mr. R. C. Prasad, Advocate, for Appellants (in C. A. No. 411/60); Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Jha and K. K. Sinha, Advocates, with him), for Respondents; Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocatee, for Appellant (in C.A. No. 285/60); Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, Advocates, with him), for Respondent; Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, for Appellant (in C. A No. 351/59); M/s. R. K. Garg and S. C. Agrawala, Advocates, for Respondents: Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal Advocate (Mr. K. K. Sinha, Advocate, for Mr. R. C. Prasad. Advocate), for Petitioners (In Petn No. 20-60); Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, Government Advocate, Bihar (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1. M/s, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, Advocates, for Petitioner (in Petn. No. 106/60). Mr. S. P. Varma , Advocate, for Respondent No. 1
Advocates:
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, D.P.Singh, K.K.SINHA, L.K.JHA, L.N.Sinha, LAL NARAIN SINHA, R.C.Prasad, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.K.Jha, S.P.Varma, TARKESHVAR DAYAL
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, D.P.Singh, K.K.SINHA, L.K.JHA, L.N.Sinha, LAL NARAIN SINHA, R.C.Prasad, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.K.Jha, S.P.Varma, TARKESHVAR DAYAL
Laws providing for the acquisition of rights in an estate, including the right to hold fairs as an interest in land, are protected under Article 31A of the Constitution from challenges based on Articles 14, 19, and 31, regardless of whether the acquisition serves a public purpose.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 31, 31A and 246 - Land Reforms Act - Amendment Act - Acquisition of right to hold fairs (Melas) - Validity of retrospective amendment - Law providing for acquisition of any estate or rights therein is saved by Article 31A from being void on the ground of inconsistency with Articles 14, 19 and 31 (Paras 7, 19).
(B) Article 31A - Scope of "acquisition" - A law may be a law providing for acquisition even if the purpose is not a public purpose; Article 31A saves such laws from the requirements of Article 31(2) (Paras 8, 9, 10).
(C) Article 31A(2)(b) - "Rights in relation to an estate" - Includes rights of raiyats and under-raiyats; the inclusion of these terms extends protection to laws acquiring rights of those who are not intermediaries (Paras 13, 14, 15).
(D) Right to hold a fair (Mela) - Nature of right - Holding a fair is a mode of user by the owner of the land and constitutes an interest in land, thus falling within the definition of "rights in an estate" (Para 16).
Facts of the case:
The State enacted an Amending Act retrospectively modifying the Land Reforms Act to vest the right to hold fairs on certain lands in the State. Ex-intermediaries, who had become occupancy raiyats under the original Act, challenged the validity of this acquisition, arguing that the right to hold a fair was not a right in an estate and that the acquisition was not for a public purpose.
Findings of Court:
The Amending Act is a valid law providing for the acquisition of rights in an estate within the meaning of Article 31A of the Constitution. Consequently, it is not void despite any inconsistency with Articles 14, 19, or 31.
Issues: Whether the State legislature had the competence to enact the Amending Act and whether the law was void for violating fundamental rights or failing to serve a public purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the legislation fell within the Concurrent List regarding the acquisition of property. Under Article 31A, laws for the acquisition of estates or rights therein are protected from challenges based on Articles 14, 19, and 31, regardless of whether a public purpose is established. The right to hold a fair is an interest in land and thus a "right in an estate," and the definition of such rights explicitly includes raiyats.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- land law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the legislation is void for lacking public purpose, acquiring rights of non-intermediaries, or acquiring rights not constituting an interest in an estate. (Para 6 , 7 , 12 , 16 , 17 )
3. The legislation falls within legislative competence for property acquisition and is protected by Article 31A, as Mela rights are interests in land and raiyats are included. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Laws providing for the acquisition of rights in an estate, including raiyats' rights to hold fairs, are saved by Article 31A regardless of public purpose. (Para 9 , 15 , 16 , 19 )
5. Appeals by the State allowed, High Court orders set aside, and petitions for writs dismissed. (Para 20 )
6. Does a law providing for the acquisition of an estate under Article 31A need to be for a public purpose to be valid?
No. Article 31A provides that a law for the acquisition of any estate or rights therein shall not be deemed void under Articles 14, 19, or 31, even if the acquisition is not for a public purpose. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Are the rights of raiyats who are not intermediaries considered rights in relation to an estate under Article 31A?
Yes. The definition of rights in relation to an estate under Article 31A(2)(b) specifically includes rights vesting in a raiyat or under-raiyat, regardless of whether they act as intermediaries. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. Is the right to hold a Mela (fair) on land considered a right in an estate?
Yes. Holding a Mela is a mode of user by the owner of the land and is considered an interest in land appurtenant to the ownership of the estate. (Para 16 )
9. Can a law retrospectively acquire rights in an estate if the estate had ceased to exist before the law was enacted?
Yes. If the legislation is given retrospective effect, the validity is determined by whether the estates existed on the date to which the law is retrospectively applied. (Para 12 , 17 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : The common question which arises for decision in this group of cases is as regards the validity of the Bihar Act No. XVI of 1959 ( BIHAR LAND REFORMS AMENDMENT ACT , 1959), in so far as it amends with retrospective effect Ss. 4 and 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, to be indicated later, and inserts the new sections, S. 7B and S. 7C in that Act. It appears that sometime after the Bihar Land Reforms Act became law and action was taken under S. 3 thereof by the State Government issuing notifications, declaring that the estates or tenures of proprietors or tenure-holders, specified in the notifications had passed to and become vested in the State, the Revenue authorities started interfering with the rights of those ex-proprietors and ex-tenure-holders to hold Melas on lands of which they were thereafter in occupation as occupancy raiyats under the State and started settling rights to realize tolls from such Melas on behalf of the State Government. Aggrieved by this action taken by the Revenue authorities on behalf of the State Government applications were made by several of these erstwhile intermediaries - now occupancy raiyats - to the High Court of Patna for writs restraining the Government and its officers from such interference with their rights.
2. Five such applications have given rise to the five appeals which are numbered as C. A. No. 351 of 1959, C. A. No. 27 of 1960, C. A. No. 92 of 1960, C. A. No. 285 of 1960 and C. A. No. 411 of 1960. The High Court held that in view of the provisions of S. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (before its amendment) and the fact that the provisions made in S.4 (a) of the Act about the consequences that would ensue on the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State were "subject to" the provisions of S.6, the State had no right to hold Melas on the Bakasht lands of the ex-intermediaries - now occupancy raiyats. Accordingly the High Court allowed the applications and issued writs as prayed for. Against these orders of the High Court the State of Bihar and its officers have preferred the five appeals mentioned above, after obtaining special leave from this Court.
3. Some time after special leave was obtained by these appellants the Bihar Legislature enacted in 1959. the BIHAR LAND REFORMS AMENDMENT ACT , 1959 (Bihar Act XVI of 1959). This Act amended inter alia S. 4 cl. (b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, by adding the word "Mela" after the words "jalkars, hats" and bazaars" and by omitting the words "subject to the subsequent provisions of this Chapter" in cl. (a) of S.4. It also amended S. 6 of the 1950 Act by substitution for the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" the words "subject to the provisions of Ss 7A and 7B". Of these S. 7B provides that "Where on any land deemed to be settled with the intermediary under the provisions of S. 5, S. 6 or S. 7, a Mela was being held by the intermediary at any time within 3 years of the date of vesting, the right to hold such Mela on such land shall with effect from such date, vest in the State and notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the State shall have and the intermediary shall not, except with the consent of the State Government have the right to hold such Mela on such land or to do anything which may prejudicially affect such Mela." Section 7C contains provisions as regards settlement of hats, bazars or melas referred to in S. 7A and S. 7B and provides inter alia that settlements will be made with the outgoing intermediary or his heir after application is received from him and if there are several of them who apply for settlement, with the most suitable of them. The Amending Act made the amendments mentioned above, except the insertion of S. 7C, retrospective, with effect from the date of enactment of the parent Act. The amending Act had already been passed, when several other applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution for similar relief against the interference by the Governmen
