Judgment

Srikrishna, J.—This appeal by special leave impugns a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing a writ ­petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding certain provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as ultra vires the Constitution of India as also declaring that clause 3(e) of Article 323B of the Constitution to the extent it provides for transfer of all pending cases under Article 323 B violates the basic structure of the Consti­tution. The judgment also declares section 9 of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.­

2. The Government of West Bengal, after obtaining the assent of the Governor, notified and published the provisions of the said Act in the official gazette dated December 12, 1997.

3. The respondents 1 to 4, who are advocates and members of the Bar Association of Calcutta High Court, filed writ petition No. 7110(W)/1998 in the Calcutta High Court challenging the provisions of the said Act as ultra vires, null and void and ineffective, and seeking a declaration that Article 323B(2)(d) of the Constitution could not take away the power of the High Court and other civil courts to decide disputes in relation to the acts specified in the said Act.

4. The Act was brought into force by a Notification dated 3rd August 1998. Simultaneously, a Tribunal called the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, contemplated under section 4 of the Act, was also brought into existence by another notification issued on the same date. Another notification was issued on the same date specifying the place at which the Benches of the said Tribunal shall ordinarily sit. It was also notified on the same day that w.e.f. 12th August 1998 (the appointed­ date) the tribunal shall exercise ­jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to the matters specified in clauses (a) to (e) of ­section 6 of the said Act. The learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court heard the writ petition and by the impugned judgment dated 16.4.1999 struck down certain provisions of the said Act as already indicated. The State of West Bengal is in appeal.

5. Three principal contentions were urged before the High Court, namely:

1. The Tribunal constituted under the said Act is not a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 323 B (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as it lacks the necessary attributes prescribed by the said Article.

2. The jurisdiction power and authority of the Tribunal specified in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the said Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India, as the said provisions abridge and take away the power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as a court of first instance;

3. The provision of the said Act, by which all pending matters, proceedings, cases and appeals before the High Court stood transferred to the Tribunal under section 9, is also ultra vires the Constitution as it abridges and takes away the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

6. The learned single Judge of the High Court negatived the first contention and held that the said Act was enacted for resolution of disputes relating to and arising out of certain acts specified therein for which purpose the Tribunal could be validly constituted under Article 323 B of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge also held that Constitution of the Tribunal under the said Act in relation to the specified enactments was not ultra vires Article 323B(2)(d) of the Constitution. However, the learned single Judge accepted the second and third contentions by taking the view that the observations made by Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261 did not amount