S.C.Misra, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an objection by the respondents to the attachment and sale of lands comprised in Khata Nos. 69 and 71, within Khewat No. 2/2, in village Armai, police station Gumla in the district of Ranchi.

2. Ramdayal Sahu obtained a decree for Rs. 7,000.00 against the respondents on the 18th of July, 1940. The decree was put into execution and, in course of it, the judgment-debtor put forward the objection that the two khatas in question were raiyati lands and the decree-holder was debarred from putting these lands to sale under Sec. 47 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (Bengal Act 6 of 1908) as amended in 1938 and 1947. No doubt, these lands were originally the bakasht lands of the Judgment-debtor, but after the proprietary interest vested in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act, the Judgment-debtor continued in possession of the lands as raiyati interest in terms of Sec. 6 of the Land Reforms Act. The executing court acceded to the contention and allowed the Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 80 of 1958 which arose out of the objection. The decree-holder came up in appeal from the decision of the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, who allowed the objections of the Judgment-debtor, and the appeal was placed before a single judge for disposal. By an order dated the 12th, May, 1960, the learned single Judge directed the appeal to be placed before a Division Bench, and the Division Bench by order dated the 20th. November, 1964, directed that the case should be placed before a larger bench. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us to pronounce upon the validity of Ss. 46 (1) (c) and 47 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, hereinafter called the Act. The questions formulated to be answered and as recast stand thus:

(1) Whether the restrictive provision in Clause (c) of the second proviso to Sec. 46 (1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act to the effect that a transfer of his occu-pancv holding by a raiyat of a class other than Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or backward classes can be made only to a resident within the local limits of the district in which the holding is situate, is valid and legal in view of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution?

(2) If Sec. 46 (1) (c) is struck down as invalid to the above extent whether Sec. 47 can stand as valid in general terms relating also to the occupancy raiyati interest of persons who are other than members of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or backward classes?

3. Mr. L. K. Choudhary appears in support of the appeal and the respondents were not represented either before the single Judge or before the Division Bench. Accordingly, notice was issued to the Advocate General to put in appearance and place before the Court the other point of view on account of the importance of the question involved in it and as it affects the matter of legislative policy in regard to raiyati lands in the district of Ranchi.

4. It may be stated that the learned Special Subordinate Judge purported to follow the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Halkhori Sahu V/s. Adit Sahu, 1964 BLJR 274 in which it was held in view of Sec. 47 of the Act, the raiyati interest of a tenant could not be put to auction-sale in execution of a decree obtained against him. Mr. L. K. Choudhary, however, submitted that the correctness of that view might be canvassed in light of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhau Ram V/s. Baji Nath Singh, AIR 1962 S. C. 1476 which was a case relating to the validity of the Act passed for the State of Rewa recognising the principle of the law of preemption as being applicable to the territory of the State of Rewa as well. After the merger of the State in the Indian Union, the validity of that Act was questioned in view of the provisions of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the Act recognising statutorily the customary law of pre-emption ran counter to