Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Sm.Chhaya Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 187 of 1954 ; 225 of 1954 ; 262 of 1954 ; 267 of 1954 ; 436 of 1954 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 21, 1956
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Bihar Act 30 of 1951 (Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951) - Constitutionality - Whether the provisions of the Act are constitutionally valid and operative - Whether the Act contravenes the constitutional guarantee under Article 31(2) - Whether the Act is saved by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 - Whether the Act violates the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14 - Whether the Act violates the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f) - Whether the proceedings taken by the Collector under Sec.3 of the Act before 27-4-1955 are illegal and beyond his jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Bihar Act 30 of 1951 (Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951) on the grounds that it contravened the constitutional guarantee under Article 31(2), violated the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14, violated the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f), and that the proceedings taken by the Collector under Sec.3 of the Act before 27-4-1955 were illegal and beyond his jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Bihar Act 30 of 1951 were constitutionally valid and operative after 27-4-1955, after the cloud or eclipse was removed by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. However, the Court also held that the proceedings taken by the Collector under Sec.3 before 27-4-1955 were ab initio void, illegal and without jurisdiction, and that the effect of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act was not to validate or legalise such proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Bihar Act 30 of 1951 are constitutionally valid and operative? 2. Whether the Act contravenes the constitutional guarantee under Article 31(2)? 3. Whether the Act is saved by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955? 4. Whether the Act violates the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14? 5. Whether the Act violates the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f)? 6. Whether the proceedings taken by the Collector under Sec.3 of the Act before 27-4-1955 are illegal and beyond his jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Bihar Act 30 of 1951 contravened the constitutional guarantee under Article 31(2) because the fixing of compensation under Section 7(2) of the Act was arbitrary and could not be regarded as due compliance with the requirements of Article 31(2). 2. The Court held that the Act was saved by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, which inserted Article 31(2A) and provided that a law does not provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that it deprives any person of his property. 3. The Court held that the Act did not violate the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14 because the geographical classification was a good classification because there was a nexus or connection between the classification and the object of the statute. 4. The Court held that the Act did not violate the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f) because Article 19(1)(f) does not apply to a case where there is a complete and total deprivation of property. 5. The Court held that the proceedings taken by the Collector under Sec.3 of the Act before 27-4-1955 were illegal and beyond his jurisdiction because the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act was not retrospective with regard to the amendment of Article 31(2) and the insertion of the new Article 31(2A).
Final Decision: The Court allowed all the applications except Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 614 of 1955, and issued a writ in the nature of certiorari in each of these cases to quash the proceedings taken by the Collector. The Court dismissed Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 614 of 1955.
Ramaswami, J.
1. In these cases, which have been heard together, a common question of law arises for determination, namely, whether the provisions of Bihar Act 30 of 1951 are constitutionally valid and operative.
2. In order to appreciate the question raised, it is necessary to set out the relevant sections of the statute. The title of the Act is "The Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951". The Act begins with the following preamble:
"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the restoration to former raiyats of certain lands which were sold for arrears, of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of rent or which were treated as abandoned, between the 1st day of January, 1939, and the 31st day of December, 1950, in the absence of the raiyats due to floods in the Kosi river;
3. Sec.1(2) of the Act provides that the Act Sec.1(2) of the Act provides that the Act shall extend to such areas o f the districts of Bhagal-pur, Monghyr, Purnea and Darbhanga as may be notified, from time to time, by the State Government". Sec.2 contains a number of definitions. Sec.3 is important and must be set out in full:
"3, If the holding of raiyat or portion thereof was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent or if a raiyat was ejected from a holding or portion thereof in execution of a decree passed under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 66 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, or if the holding of a raiyat or portion thereof was treated as abandoned under Section 87 of the said Act at any time" between the 1st day of January 1939, and the 31st day of December, 1950, and is in the possession of the landlord or any other person, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, of his own motion or otherwise, take steps for the restoration of such holding or portion thereof to the said raiyat".
4. Sec. 4 requires the Collector to give notice of the proceeding under Sec.3 to the raiyat, the landlord and any other person interested in the holding or portion thereof. Sec. 5 provides that on the date fixed in the notice, the landlord or any other person may appear & object to the restoration of the holding or portion thereof on any one or more of the following grounds:
"(a) that he has constructed any building or other structure of a permanent nature or planted any garden on the holding or any portion thereof before the date of commencement of this Act and that such building, structure or garden is of such a value that the restoration of the land covered by such building, structure or garden will be unfair; and
(b) that he has excavated any tank or sunk any pucca well on the holding or any portion thereof before the date of the commencement of this Act".
5. The section also requires the Collector to examine the objections and make such enquiry as he thinks fit, and drop the proceedings if certain conditions specified in the section are satisfied. Section 7 is of special importance. Section 7 enacts that if the proceedings are not dropped under Sec. 5, Sub-section (2), the Collector shall, (a) determine the land which is liable to be restored to the raiyat under the provisions of the Act, (b) determine the amount which will be payable by the raiyat as compensation, and (c) specify the person to whom the compensation shall be payable.
The Collector is also empowered under the section to make an order that the raiyat shall be put in possession of the land. Section 7(2) enacts as to what are the principles on which the compensation is to be fixed. Section 7(2) must be quoted in full: "7(2) The amount to be determined under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) shall be the cost of improvements, if any, effected on the holding or portion thereof which, the Collector may deem fair and equitable and,-- (a) where the holding or portion thereof is in possession of the landlord or any other person to whom it was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent-- (i) in the case of an entire holding or, if only a portion of a holding was sold, in the case of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
