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

1957 Supreme(Pat) 60

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Sir Syed Wasif Ali Mirza Khan Bahadur Mahabat, Jung, Nawab Bahadur Of Moorshidabad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 262 of 1956 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1957

A subsequent general law can override a prior special law if it manifests a clear intention to do so.

Headnote:

LAND REFORMS - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Applicability - Whether overrides special legislation - Whether violates agreement between petitioner and Government of India - Whether notifications issued under the Act are valid.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, challenged the validity of notifications issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, claiming that they violated a special agreement between him and the Government of India and that the Act could not override the special legislation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, validly applied to the petitioner's estates, overriding the special legislation and the agreement between the petitioner and the Government of India. The Court found that the Act's purpose was to bring about land reform for the general benefit of the community and that the legislature intended to override all previous laws and private agreements.

Issues: 1. Whether the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, could override the special legislation, namely, the Murshidabad Act, 1891, and the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933. 2. Whether the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, violated the agreement between the petitioner and the Government of India. 3. Whether the notifications issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" does not apply when a subsequent general law manifests an intention to override a prior special law. 2. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, clearly expressed an intention to override all previous laws and private agreements, including the agreement between the petitioner and the Government of India. 3. The notifications issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, were valid as they only affected land situated within the territorial limits of the State of Bihar.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that the notifications issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, were legally valid and that no case had been made out for the grant of a writ of certiorari or mandamus.

Judgment

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case the petitioner, Khan Bahadur Mahabat Jung, has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ In the nature of mandamus should not be issued commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) with regard to the estates of the petitioner located in the districts of Patna, Santal Parganas and Purnea. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Bihar and other opposite parties to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given,

2. The petitioner is the grandson of the late Nawab Nazim of Bengal. He owns very extensive properties, including the proprietary and tenure rights, in the districts of Purnea, the Santal Parganas and Patna in the State of Bihar. These properties once belonged to the late Nawab Nazim of Bengal, who on the 12th March 1891, entered into an agreement with the Secretary of State for India by which Nawab Nazim relinquished for himself, his heirs and successors all the claims to the position and dignity of Nawab Nazim in consideration of a covenant that the Nawab Bahadur and his successors would enjoy in perpetuity the properties in question. The agreement between the Nawab Nazim and the Secretary of State was duly ratified by the legislature, of the Government of India and the Moorshidabad Act (Act 15 of 1893) was duly passed recognising the terms of the aforesaid agreement. Sec. 5 of this Act provides :-

-

" 5. All property, moveable and immoveable, mentioned In the said indenture, or in any of the schedules thereto or in any addition which under Sec.3 may from time to time be made to those schedules or any of them, shall descend and, subject to the provisions of the said indenture, be enjoyed for ever by the Nawab Bahadur of Moorshidabad for the time being. "

3. In 1933another Act, namely, the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933 (Act 23 of 1933) was passed in order to provide for the appointment of a Manager of the properties of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and to define the powers and duties of the Manager. This Act was passed in order to afford protection to the Nawab Bahadur who suffered disabilities by reason of his embarrassed circumstances and to prevent further increase in his debts arid to provide machinery for repayment to his creditors. In pursuance of the provisions of this Act, the Board of Revenue took possession and management of the estate of the petitioner. On the 26th September 1950, the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) was promulgated. In exercise of the powers vested by Sec.3 of this Act opposite party No. 1 issued Notification No. 438-EV-II-1022/ 55 L. R., dated the 18th August 1955, for vesting of all the estates and rights held under such estates in the districts of Samal Parganas and Patna, and Notification No. A-VII-1022-54-631 L. R., dated the 26th January 1955, read with Notification No. 5404 L.. R., dated the 21st September 1954, for the vesting of all estates and rights held under such estates in the district of Purnea. These Notifications were duly published in the Bihar Gazette and are annexures A, A-1 and A-2 of the application. The case of the petitioner is that the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) cannot override the provisions of the appeal Act, namely, the Moorshidabad Act (Act 15 of 1891), and the Notifications issued by the State Government under Sec.3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act were illegal and ultra vires and ought to be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act with regard to the disputed properties.

4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued in the first place that Act 15 of 1891, -namely, the Murshidabad Act, was special legislation dealing with the case of a





















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