SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Pat) 93

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and B.P.Jamuar JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Jhirki Mining Corporation Ltd.And Ors.
Appeal From Original Order No. 149 of 1952 ; 169 of 1952 ;
Decided On : MAY 14, 1953

The provisional Parliament and Legislature had the power to enact permanent laws under Articles 379 and 382 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - VALIDITY OF CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1951 - SCOPE OF ARTICLES 379 AND 382 OF THE CONSTITUTION - POWER OF PROVISIONAL PARLIAMENT AND LEGISLATURE TO ENACT PERMANENT LAWS.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, claiming to be zamindars, joint stock companies, and trustees, filed suits challenging the constitutionality of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the State of Bihar from taking possession of their properties. The Subordinate Judge granted the injunction, holding that there were debatable questions regarding the applicability of the Act to the plaintiffs' properties.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which inserted Articles 31A and 31B to protect the Bihar Land Reforms Act from constitutional challenges, was valid and that the Act applied to the plaintiffs' properties. The Court also held that the provisional Parliament and Legislature had the power to enact permanent laws under Articles 379 and 382 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, was valid and effective in protecting the Bihar Land Reforms Act from constitutional challenges. 2. Whether the Bihar Land Reforms Act applied to the plaintiffs' properties, including zamindari assets of joint stock companies, khorposh grants, and trust estates. 3. Whether the provisional Parliament and Legislature had the power to enact permanent laws under Articles 379 and 382 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, was valid and effective in protecting the Bihar Land Reforms Act from constitutional challenges. The power granted to the President under Article 392 to adapt the Constitution was limited to a temporary period and did not include the power to amend the Constitution permanently. However, the provisional Parliament was empowered to amend the Constitution under Article 379, which conferred on it all the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution. 2. The Bihar Land Reforms Act applied to the plaintiffs' properties. The definition of 'tenure' in the Act included khorposh grants, and the Act was intended to apply to zamindari assets of joint stock companies and trust estates. 3. The provisional Parliament and Legislature had the power to enact permanent laws under Articles 379 and 382 of the Constitution. The language of these articles was broad and did not limit the power of the provisional Parliament and Legislature to enact only temporary laws.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, vacated the temporary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiffs, and allowed the appeals with costs.

Judgment

Ramaswami, J.

1. These appeals are brought against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh dated 31-5-1952, granting a temporary injunction restraining the State of Bihar from taking possession of certain zamiridari estates which had been notified under Sec.3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

2. The appeals relate to twenty one suits which fall into three different categories. Title suits 76, 78, 80, 66 and 79 of 1951 are instituted on behalf of parsons who claim that the Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh had granted them zamindari properties in Khorposh. The second group relates to Title Suits 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 of 1951 in which the question at issue is whether the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act apply to the Zamindari assets of joint stock companies, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The third group relates to Title Suits 71, 67, 72, 75, 74, 77 and 73 of 1951 in which the plaintiffs allege that they are trustees of the zamindari estates and that the Bihar Land Reforms Act does not apply to trust estates. In all the suits the reliefs claimed are of the same type. The plaintiffs asked in substance for a declaration that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was unconstitutional and invalid and that at any rate the provisions of the Act did not apply either to joint stock companies, to estates granted in khorposh, or to estates vested in trustees for the purpose of public or private trust. It was urged that notifications issued by the State of Bihar under Sec.3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act were illegal and it was prayed that the State of Bihar and its officers should be restrained by injunction from acting under the authority of the notifications under Section 3, or to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the Zamindari properties. The suits were instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge on 25-9-1951. On the application of the plaintiffs the Subordinate Judge issued on 27-9-1951 an ad interim injunction restraining the .defendant, State of Bihar, from taking possession of the properties in question. The question as to the constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was meanwhile raised in -- Kameshwar Singh V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 91 (SB) (A), in the Patna High Court. On 12-3-1951 the High Court held that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was invalid as it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The State of Eihar took an appeal to the Supreme Court from this decision. While the appeal was pending, the Constitution was amended by the Provisional Parliament by tile Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. That Act inserted the new Articles 31A and 31B which purported to protect all laws providing for the acquisition of estates, and, in particular, the Bihar Land Reforms Act from any attack on its validity on the ground that it violates or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The validity of the Amending Act was in turn challenged in the Supreme Court in proceedings instituted under Article 32 but the validity of the Act was upheld in -- Shankari Prasad Singh Deo V/s. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 (B). On 5-5-1952, the Supreme Court decided the appeal preferred by the State of Bihar. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and it was held that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was not unconstitutional or void except with regard to the provisions of Sec. 4(b) and Sec.23(f).

After the decision of the Supreme Court the question of injunction was taken up in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Hazari-bagh. It was urged on behalf of the State of Bihar that the controversy had been set at rest by the judgment of the Supreme Court and that the ad interim order of injunction granted in the suits should be vacated. The contention was overruled by the Subordinate Judge who made the order of ad interim injunction absolute and restrained the State of Bihar from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs till the suits were






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top