1. Dispute over annulment of land settlement under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, concerning the date of transfer and Collector's jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd May, 1961
J.L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of Bihar and another, Appellants
Versus
Umesh Jha, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 425 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
M/s. B. K. P. Sinha and D. P. Singh, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. C. Prasad, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.K.P.SINHA, D.P.Singh, L.K.JHA, R.C.Prasad
B.K.P.SINHA, D.P.Singh, L.K.JHA, R.C.Prasad
Provisions empowering authorities to annul fraudulent transfers to protect land reform objectives are saved by Article 31A of the Constitution. Furthermore, while substantive powers granted by amendment may be retrospective, procedural requirements for government confirmation are generally prospective unless explicitly stated.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 4(h) - Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 31 and 31A - Power of Collector to annul transfers - Constitutional validity - Whether a provision conferring power to cancel transfers made to defeat the Act is protected under Article 31A - Held: The provision is an integral part of the Act designed to extinguish or modify rights in an estate and prevent fraud to achieve the object of the Act; therefore, it is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution. (Para 5)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Retrospective vs. Prospective application - Amendment to Section 4(h) - Whether the requirement for confirmation of an order by the State Government applies to orders passed before the amendment - Held: While the power to inquire into transfers is retrospective, the proviso requiring subsequent confirmation by the State Government is prospective. For orders made before the amendment, the previous sanction obtained is sufficient. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A party claimed settlement of certain plots before a specified cutoff date. The Collector, exercising power under the land reforms act, annulled the settlement, holding it was a paper transaction actually made after the cutoff date. The High Court set aside this order, ruling the Collector lacked jurisdiction to question the date of a settlement that was prima facie shown to have been made before the cutoff date. The State appealed against this decision.
Findings of Court:
The provision allowing the Collector to annul transfers is constitutionally valid as it is ancillary to the main object of the land reforms act. Furthermore, the amendment granting the Collector power to determine the date of transfer is retrospective, but the requirement for government confirmation of such orders is prospective.
Issues: (i) Whether the provision for annulling transfers is hit by Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution or saved by Article 31A; (ii) Whether the requirement for State Government confirmation of the Collector's order under the Amending Act applies retrospectively to orders passed before the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision that is an integral part of an Act designed to extinguish or modify rights in an estate to prevent fraud is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution. In statutory interpretation, where an amendment uses "deemed always to have been" for some parts but simple "omitted" for others, the former is retrospective and the latter is prospective.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Collector has jurisdiction to determine transfer dates, whether the amendment is retrospective, and whether the provision violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Section 4(h) is an integral part of the Act for extinguishing estate rights, thus protected by Article 31A; the second proviso of the amendment is prospective. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. Provisions ancillary to the main object of land reform acts are protected under Article 31A; amendments without deemed always language are generally prospective. (Para 5 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside. (Para 9 )
6. Is Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, protected under Article 31A of the Constitution?
Yes. The section is an integral part of the Act designed to extinguish or modify rights in an estate and prevent fraud, making it ancillary to the Act's main object and thus protected under Article 31A. (Para 5 )
7. Does the requirement for State Government confirmation of a Collector's order under the amended Section 4(h) apply retrospectively?
No. The amendment requiring subsequent confirmation is prospective. For orders made before the Amending Act, the previous sanction obtained suffices, whereas subsequent confirmation is required for orders made after the amendment. (Para 7 )
8. Does the Collector have the power to determine if a land transfer was made before or after January 1, 1946, under the amended Section 4(h)?
Yes. Under the amended section, the Collector is clearly and expressly conferred with the power to decide whether a transfer was made before or after January 1, 1946. (Para 3 , 6 )
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by certificate raises the question of the construction of S. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Bihar Act l6 of 1959) hereinafter called the Amending Act).
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal lie in a small compass. Plots Nos. 383 and 1033 are tanks in village Lakshmipur alias Tarauni in the District of Darbhanga. The respondent claims to have taken settlement of the said plots in the year 1943 from the landlords of Raghopur Estate of which the said plots formed a part. After the coming into force of the Act, the said Estate vested in the State of Bihar. Thereafter, one Sheonandan Jha and some other villagers of Lakshmipur filed a petition before the Collector alleging that the alleged settlement was not true, and that in fact the settlement was nominally effected only after January 1, 1946. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S. 4 (h) of the Act, held that the said settlement was actually made after January 1,1946, and that it was only a paper transaction ; having annulled the said settlement, the Additional Collector, by his order, dated January 18, 1955, called upon the respondent to give up possession of the said plots by January 30, 1955. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a rule in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ cancelling the order of the Additional Collector, dated January 18, 1955 and restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession of the said two plots. That petition came to be decided by a Division Bench of the High Court; and the learned Judges by their order, dated February 21, 1956, held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question whether the settlement, which was prima facie shown to have been made before January 1, 1946, was actually made after that date. On the basis of that finding, the order of the Additional Collector was set aside. The State of Bihar and the Additional Collector of Darbhanga have preferred the present appeal against the said order.
3. Learned counsel for the State contends that S. 4 (h) of the Act has been amended with retrospective effect, that under the amended section the Collector has power to decide whether a transfer is made before 1946 or thereafter, and that, therefore, the order of the High Court can no longer be sustained.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, while conceding the retroactivity of the amendment, relies upon the second proviso added by the amendment to S. 4 (h) and contends that under the said proviso the order of the Collector cannot take effect nor possession taken thereunder, unless the said order has been confirmed by the State Government and that in the instant case there has not been any such confirmation. Further he questions the constitutional validity of the said section on the ground that it infringes the fundamental right of the respondent under Arts. 14, 19 and 31,of the Constitution and is not saved by Art.31A thereof.
5. The second contention of learned counsel for the respondent may be disposed of first. Under Art. 31A of the Constitution, no law providing for the acquistion by the State of any estate or of any rights there in or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Art. 14, Art. 19 or Art 31. The question is whether S. 4 (h) of the Act is such a law as to be hit by Art. 31A of the Constitution. Section 4 (h) of the Act confers power on a Collector, inter alia, to make inquiries in respect of any transfer of any land comprised in an estate and to cancel the same if he is satisfied that such transfer was made an
