1952 Supreme(Pat) 4

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 204 of 1950 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 03, 1952

The legislature has plenary powers of legislation within the ambit of its powers and can legislate to interfere with pending proceedings in law courts or declare unsound a view of law taken by the courts.

Headnote:

SATI LANDS (RESTORATION) ACT, 1950 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - VALIDITY - JUDICIAL POWER - LEGISLATIVE POWER - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 19(1)(F) - ARTICLE 31(2) - COURT OF WARDS ACT, SEC.18 - INTERPRETATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - AVAILABILITY - DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT - ADEQUATE REMEDY - ARTICLE 226 - SCOPE. The Sathi Lands (Restoration) Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXXIV of 1950), which declared the settlement of certain lands with the petitioners to be null and void and directed their eviction, was challenged on the grounds of unconstitutionality, violation of fundamental rights, and usurpation of judicial power by the legislature. The Court held that: 1. The Act was a valid law within the meaning of Article 245 of the Constitution and did not constitute an exercise of judicial power by the legislature. 2. The classification made by the legislature in the Act was reasonable and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Act did not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution as the petitioners had not acquired any right or title to the land due to the illegality of the settlement. 4. The interpretation of Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act was that the Court of Wards must apply its mind to the question of benefit to the estate or advantage of the ward in all cases, including outright sales, mortgages, leases, or farms. 5. The High Court ought not to issue a writ of mandamus in the present case as the petitioners' title depended on disputed questions of fact which could not be satisfactorily determined in summary proceedings and there was an alternative remedy available by way of suit.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Sri Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and Sri Ramrekha Prasad Narayan Sahi, obtained a rule nisi calling upon the State of Bihar and other respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued commanding them not to take any action under the Sathi Lands (Restoration) Act, 1950 and not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over 200 bighas of land of which they claimed to have obtained an agricultural lease.

Finding of the Court:

1. The impugned Act was a valid law within the meaning of Article 245 of the Constitution and did not constitute an exercise of judicial power by the legislature. 2. The classification made by the legislature in the Act was reasonable and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Act did not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution as the petitioners had not acquired any right or title to the land due to the illegality of the settlement. 4. The interpretation of Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act was that the Court of Wards must apply its mind to the question of benefit to the estate or advantage of the ward in all cases, including outright sales, mortgages, leases, or farms. 5. The High Court ought not to issue a writ of mandamus in the present case as the petitioners' title depended on disputed questions of fact which could not be satisfactorily determined in summary proceedings and there was an alternative remedy available by way of suit.

Issues: 1. Whether the Sathi Lands (Restoration) Act, 1950 was a valid law within the meaning of Article 245 of the Constitution or an exercise of judicial power by the legislature? 2. Whether the classification made by the legislature in the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Act violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution? 4. Whether the interpretation of Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act was correct? 5. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued in the present case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The legislature has plenary powers of legislation within the ambit of its powers and can legislate to interfere with pending proceedings in law courts or declare unsound a view of law taken by the courts. 2. The impugned Act was a law which was not an exercise of judicial power but a predetermination of what the law shall be for the regulation of all future cases arising under it. 3. The classification made by the legislature in the Act was reasonable as it was based on the different degrees in which the evil of illegal settlements was present. 4. The Act did not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution as the petitioners had not acquired any right or title to the land due to the illegality of the settlement. 5. The interpretation of Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act was correct as the Court of Wards must apply its mind to the question of benefit to the estate or advantage of the ward in all cases, including outright sales, mortgages, leases, or farms. 6. The High Court ought not to issue a writ of mandamus in the present case as the petitioners' title depended on disputed questions of fact which could not be satisfactorily determined in summary proceedings and there was an alternative remedy available by way of suit.

Final Decision: The application for a writ of mandamus was dismissed with costs.