The Bihar Legislature had the jurisdiction to legislate with respect to the properties in question, which were "estates" within the meaning of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and the petitioner was a "proprietor" within the meaning of the Act.

Ramaswami, J.

1. On the 16th August, 1947, an instrument of accession was executed between the Dominion of India and the petitioner who was at that time the ruler of Seraikella State. This was followed by another agreement, between the parties known as the stand-still agreement. On the 15th December, 1947, a further agreement was reached between the petitioner and the Dominion of India by which the administration of Seraihella was transferred to the Dominion of India.

Subsequently, on the 31st December, 1947, the Government of Orissa, purporting to act under the authority, and as a delegate, of the Government of India, took over the administration of Seraikella State. On the 18th May 1948, the administration of the State was transferred to Bihar, and ever since it has been administered by the Government of Bihar. On the 12th January, 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India amended the Government of India Act, 1935, by introducing in the said Act Sections 290A and 290B. This Act was authenticated by the President of the Constituent Assembly on the 10th January, 1949 and was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on the 12th January, 1949. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Sec.290A of the Amending Act the Government of India promulgated an order on the 27th July, 1949. This order was called the States Merger (Governors Provinces) Order, 1949. On the 26th January, 1950, when the Constitution came into force, the State of Seraikella was treated and held to be a territory of Bihar.

2. The Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) came into force on the 25th September, 1950. Under Sec.3 of that Act the Government of Bihar issued the following notification on the 10th May, 1955:

"The 10th May, 1955. No. 5327-LR/ZAN In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (i) of Sec.3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to declare that the tenures named in the Schedule hereto annexed belonging to the tenure-holder names in the Schedule, have with effect from the date of the publication of this notification in the Bihar Gazette, passed to and become vested in the State under the provisions of this Act.

(TABLE)

3. On the 22nd July, 1955, the petitioner made an application in the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notification of the State Government under Sec.3 of the Bihar Land (sic)rms Act. The application was summarily dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner in the Supreme Court that the notification of the State Government under Sec.3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was ultra vires because the State of Seratkella had not been validly integrated with the territory of Bihar, and in the eye of law it was not a part of Bihar, and so the legislation, made by the Bihar Legislature, under which the notification was issued, could not apply to the lands situated in the State of Seraikella.

It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the lands in respect of which the notification under the Act had been issued were not tenure lands and the petitioner was not a tenureholder within the meaning of the Act. With regard to the first contention the Supreme Court held that there was no substance because a similar contention had been raised by the petitioner in a title sun instituted by him on the 16th January, 1950, in the Federal Court for a declaration that the agreement of the 16th December, 1947, the enactment of Sec.290A and the promulgation of the States Merger Order were all void and inoperative. When the suit was pending in the Federal Court the Constitution came into force on the 26th January, 1950, and consequently the suit came up for hearing before the Supreme Court in March, 1951. It was held by the Supreme Court in a majority judgment that having regard to the subject matter of the suit, and in view of th