A plaintiff must show that he has a substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit before he could be granted a declaration that the impugned Act is unconstitutional.

1. In the, suit out of which P. A. No. 33 of 1949 arises the plaintiff, namely, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh; asked for a declaration that the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act (Bihar Act 3 of 1946) are illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff alleged that in exercise of the powers conferred by that Act the State of Bihar. had issued a notification expressing their intention of constituting the notified forests belonging to the plaintiff as a private forest under the said Bihar Act 3 of 1946 and had taken over the management of the notified forests.

The case of the plaintiff was that all the provisions of Bihar Act 3 of 1946 and the notifications issued by the State Government were illegal and ultra, vires of Sec.299, Government of India Act, 1935. The plaintiff claimed two main reliefs: (1) that the Court may grant a declaration that Bihar Act 3 of 1946 was ultra vires, and (2) that the Court may grant an injunction restraining the State Government, its servants and Agents from taking over the management of the notified forests.

The suit was contested by the State of Bihar and on 30-9-1948, the Additional subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh came to the conclusion that the provisions of the impugned Act, namely, Bihar Act 3 of 1946, were intra vires and legal and the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration or injunction sought for. The plaintiff has presented P. A. No. 33 of 1949 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit.

2. Bihar Act 3 of 1946 was a Governors Act enacted under the provisions of S. 93, Government of India Act, 1935. This Act was re-enacted by the Bihar Legislature in 1948 as Bihar Act 9 of 1948, The plaintiff again brought a title suit (T. S. No. 39 of 1949) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh praying for a declaration that Bihar Act 9 of 1948 was ultra vires of the Bihar Legislature. The plaintiff also asked for an injunction directing the Government of Bihar to restore the management of the notified forests to the plaintiff.

It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that there was an agreement between the State Government and the plaintiff under Sec.38, Indian Forest Act. By this agreement the State Government had taken over the management of the notified forests under Bihar Act 9 of 1948 and so the plaintiff claimed cancellation of the agreement as mala fide and illegal and asked for a declaration to that effect. This suit was transferred to the High Court by an order made under Article 228 of the Constitution. The defendant has filed A written statement contesting the plaintiffs claim.

The main issues involved in the suit are: (1) whether the provisions of Bihar Act 9 of 1948 are invalid and unconstitutional; (2) whether the plain tiff is entitled to a declaration to that effect; (3) whether the cancellation of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant under Sec.38, Indian Forest Act was illegal and mala fide and whether the plaintiff was entitled to be restored to the management of the forest; and (4) whether Bihar Act 9 of 1948 violated the guarantee of the freedom of property contained in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

3. With the consent of the parties the title suit and the first appeal have been heard together. When the arguments were taken up the learned Government Advocate raised a preliminary point that the estate of the plaintiff has vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and so the plaintiff is not competent to maintain the title suit or to prosecute the first appeal. An additional issue was, therefore, framed in the title suit to the following effect:

"Is it competent for the plaintiff to ask for the reliefs claimed in the plaint in view of the fact that the estate of the plaintiff has vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950)?"

4. In Support of his submission the learned Government Advocate produce