SHEARER, J.

1. On 9-5-1950, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, XXX (30) of 1950, having passed through the Legislative Assembly & the Legislative Council, was reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President The President assented to the Act on 11-9-1950. On 24-9-1950, the Govt of Bihar issued a Notfn. u/s. 1(3) of the Act declaring that on the day following the estates & tenures of three leading zamindars in the province, namely, Sir Kameshwar Singh, the Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga, his brother Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh & Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narayan Singh of Ramgarh, should pass to & become vested in the State. These three zamindars at once gave notice u/s. 80, Civil P. C. of their intention to institute suits & also applied to this Ct for an injunction to restrain the Govt. of Bihar from taking possession of their property. Ad interim injunctions were granted, &, in due course. suits were instituted & were withdrawn to be tried by this Ct. in the exercise of its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. The applns. have been heard along with the suits as also have a number of similar applns. made by other zamindars who apprehend that notfn. may issue declaring that their estates & tenures also shall pass to, & become vested in, the State. The following issues in the suits were framed:

"1. Is the Bihar Land Reforms Act XXX (30) of 1950, ultra vires the legislative powers of the State of Bihar?

2.Is the said Act unconstitutional, unreasonable, inoperative & void for the reasons mentioned in para 5 of the plaint or any of them?

3.Have the properties of the pltf. vested in the State of Bihar under the said Act? If so, have they so vested under the authority of Jaw?

4.Can any question regarding compensation or principles for the determination & giving of compensation be raised in this suit in view of the assent of the President under CI. (4), Art. 31 of the Constitution?

5.Is the pltf. entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for?"

It will be convenient to deal with these issues together as, in effect, two points only are raised namely, whether the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , is or is not a constitutional law, &, if it is not a constitutional law, whether this Ct. is, by reason of Art. 31 (4) of the Constitution, disentitled to pronounce it to be unconstitutional, & to give the pltfs. the reliefs for which they ask.

2. It is not necessary to set out in any detail the provisions of the impugned Act. The Act is described in the preamble as an Act "to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors & tenure-holders in land & of the mtgees. & lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines & minerals." It is enough for our present purpose to say that certain rights of proprietors & tenure-holders are to be extinguished, & other rights are to be modifled. The rent payable by raiyats to the proprietors of estates or the holders of tenures, is in future to be paid to the State, & not to the proprietors or tenure-holders, this right of the latter being wholly extinguished. Proprietors & tenure holders are, on the other hand, to be permitted to continue in possession of their homesteads, their zerat & other agricultural or horticultural land actually cultivated by them, of any golas, factories or mills situated on their property & belonging to them, & of any mines which they themselves are working. They are to hold their homesteads free of rent, but are to be assessed to a fair & equitable rent so far as any other land of which they are permitted to continue in possession is concerned. Similarly, if they themselves are actually working any mines & are permitted to continue to do so, they must take a lease from the State, the terms of which are either to be settled by agreement or are to be determined by a Mines Tribunal. Any mines which are not being worked by the proprietors or tenure-holders themselves, but by their lesse