N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. In these three cases is involved a common and important question of law in regard to constitutional validity and scope of Sec. 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (Bihar Act VIII of 1885), as it stands after the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1970 (Act 6 of 1970), enacted by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.3 of the State Legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1969 (Act 32 of 1969).

2. C.W.J.C. 1438 of 1970 and Civil Revision No. 847 of 1970 are between the same parties and the plaintiffs have filed by way of abundant precaution both the writ application and the civil revision to challenge the same order dated the 12th May, 1970, passed by the Court below in Title Suit No, 48 of 1969. C.W.J.C. 2080 of 1970 has been filed by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 175 of 1970 to challenge the order dated the 4th December, 1970 passed by the Court below in that suit.

3. Mr. Kailash Roy has advanced the main argument on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases and the learned Advocate-General appeared for the State to oppose the applications and his argument was adopted by learned counsel for other respondents.

4. Facts are not necessary to be stated in any detail. As C.W.J.C. 1428 of 1970 and Civil Revision No. 847 of 1970 are to all intents and purposes the same, I shall briefly state their facts with reference to the writ application. The three plaintiff-petitioners instituted a title suit (Title Suit No. 48 of 1969) in the court of Munsif 2nd at Buxar for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession in respect of the suit lands, described in Schedule 2 at one place and separately in Schedules 3 and 4 appended to the plaint. A decree for permanent injunction was also asked for to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. Their case in the plaint is that defendants first party, who have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 3 to 6. have got no Sikmi right over any portion of the suit lands. By bringing the Survey staff under their collusion, the defendants got the name of defendant No. 2 recorded as Sikmidar to lay a false claim. There was a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of a portion of the suit land which was decided in favour of the defendants first party on the 18th April, 1969. Hence the suit.

5. During the pendency of Title Suit No. 48 of 1969, Bihar Act 6 of 1970 was enacted and published in the Bihar, Gazette Extraordinary, dated February 11, 1970. Sec.109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was replaced by Sec.2 of the Amending Act, Sec.3 of which provided that all suits of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of Sec.109 shall stand transferred to the Collector of the district in which such Court is situated and the Collector shall dispose them of. Defendants first party filed a petition before the learned Munsif for transfer of the suit to the Collector of Shahabad (now Collector. Bhojpur, respondent No. 2) in accordance with Sec.3 of the Amending Act. A copy of this petition is Annexure 2 to the writ application. The plaintiffs filed a petition for amendment of the plaint proposing to drop all references in the body of the plaint to the survey entry relating to the schedules. A copy of their petition is Annexure 3 to the writ application. Learned Munsif heard the parties and passed order dated 12-5-1970 (Annexure 4). The order consists of two parts. It states that in view of the provision contained in the Amending Act, the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif and stands transferred to the Collector, The learned Munsif has, therefore, directed sending of the record to the Collector through the District Judge and has refused to allow amendment of the plaint since he has lost jurisidiction in the case. Although the prayer made both in the writ application and in the civil revision by the plaintiffs is in identical terms, at the time o