A classification made by a legislation must be based on some rational or intelligible consideration and must have some rational nexus with the object which the legislation is intended to achieve.

Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - DISCRIMINATION - CLASSIFICATION - RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION - LEGISLATURE ABOLISHING RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION - SAVING CLAUSE FOR SUITS FILED BEFORE A PARTICULAR DATE - WHETHER DISCRIMINATORY - MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1954, SECTION 242(3) - WHETHER ULTRA VIRES.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption under Chapter XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code, claiming his right of pre-emption in respect of two survey numbers sold to the respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that by reason of the provisions of Act II of 1955, the suit of the petitioner was not maintainable. Section 242(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, provided that any suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, instituted after 25-3-1954, except a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale or purchase as provided in Section 181 of that Code shall, notwithstanding that that Code remains in force after that date until its repeal by this Code, be dismissed.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 242(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution as it created discrimination between persons whose suits were filed before 25-3-1951 and those whose suits were filed after that date.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 242(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, is ultra vires the Constitution for the reason that it creates discrimination between person whose suits were filed before 25-3-1951 and those whose suite were filed alter that date? 2. Whether the third sub-section of the impugned section involves exercise of judicial power and not legislative power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the classification made by Section 242(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, was not based on any rational or intelligible consideration and therefore violated Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the third sub-section of Section 242 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, did not involve exercise of judicial power and was therefore not ultra vires the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court held that Section 242(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore void.

Judgment -

1. Miscellaneous Petition No. 147 of 1955 was filed before a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Hidayatullah and Mr. Justice Mangalmurti for an order to quash an order-passed by the Civil Court dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner, and the Bench referred two questions to a Full Bench

(1) Whether Section 242 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, is ultra vires the Constitution for the reason that it creates discrimination between person whose suits were filed before 25-3-1951 and those whose suite were filed alter that date and

(2) whether the third sub-section of the impugned section involves exercise of judicial power and not legislative power?

The facts on which this petition was based are briefly these. On the 15-3-1053 the respondent purchased survey Nos. 103/1 and 105/1. The petitioner was a co-occupant of survey No. 103/2 and 105/2 and he filed a suit on 15-6-1954 under Chapter XIV of the Kerar Land Revenue Code claiming his right of pre-emption in respect of the two survey numbers sold to the respondent. This is the suit which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that by reason of the provisions of Act II of 1955 the suit of the petitioner was not maintainable.

2. Now, under Section 183 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, when an occupant in a survey number transfers his interest or any portion thereof, by any of the transfers contemplated in the sections set out, or suffers a final decree for foreclosure as contemplated in Section 177 to be passed against him, and no notice has been given as required by these sections, the other occupants in the survey number shall have a right to pre-empt the interest transferred. Such right may be enforced by a Civil Court, and in all such cases the Court shall have power to examine the transaction and fix a fair consideration for the interest to be preempted; and the case of the petitioner was that no notice was given to him as contemplated by this sub-section and therefore he being an occupant in the survey number, part of which was transferred, he had a right to preempt the part which had been sold to the respondent.

3. A Bill was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Legislature on 7-4-1933 for codification of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and this Bill was referred to the Select Committee on 29-9-1953. In the Bill as originally introduced the provision contained with regard to pre-emption in Chapter XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code was retained. The Select Committee made its report on 25-3-1054 and by its report it recommended the repeal of Chapter XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code. This report was published in the Gazette on 26-3-1954. The Bill ultimately passed by the legislature incorporated the recommendation of the Select Committee and the Bill received the absent of the President on the 5-2-1955 and became Apt II of 3955. The Act as assented to by the President was published in the Gazette on 12-2-1935. Turning to the provisions of this Act, Section 242(1) provides that Chapter XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code shall a and repealed. Sub-section (2) provides:

"(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of Chapter XIV of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, any suit to enforce a right of preemption under that Code filed on or before 213-3-1954 shall be decided in accordance with the provisions in that Code". And Sub-section (3) provides:

"(3) Any suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, instituted after 25-3-1954, except a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale or purchase as provided in Section 181 of that Code shall, notwithstanding that that Code remains in force after that date until its repeal by this Code, be dismissed."

Now, it was by reason of Section 242(3) that the Civil Court dismissed the petitioners suit inasmuch as it had been filed on 15-6-1954, i.e. after 25-3-1954, and Mr. Abhyankar on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the virea of this subsection.

4. It is clear that the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document