The amendments to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, repealing Section 16(3) and introducing Section 16(4), were upheld as constitutional, with the court affirming that affected parties retain the right to seek redress through writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:-

“1. (a) For declaring the newly added Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 1961”) as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, whereby the statutory remedy of appeal/revision- as was earlier available to aggrieved person has been repealed, without proving for any forum for adjudication of disputes.

(b) For declaring the newly added Section 16 (4) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, whereby all cases or proceedings pending before the State Government, the Board of Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal, the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, the Additional Collector, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms or in any other court, have been deemed to be abated.

(c) For holding and declaring that the Clause (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019, whereby and whereunder Section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 has been repealed and a new Section 16(4) has been added whereby and whereunder all cases or proceedings pending before the State Government, the Board of Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal, the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, the Additional Collector, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms or in any other court, have been deemed to be abated is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

(d) For holding that the orders dated 02.04.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Vaishali in Pre-Emption Appeal Case No. 163 of 2016-17 and 180 of 2016-17 on the basis of Clause (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019, whereby and whereunder Section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 has been repealed, is illegal in as much as the aforesaid amendment in Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 in itself is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

(e) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Before proceeding to deal with the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the instant application, it may be mentioned here that the constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Amendment Act of 2016’) as also that of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Amendment Act of 2019’) both came to be considered by this Court in Sudhakar Jha and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.; 2023 (6) BLJ 397.

3. By the Amendment Act of 2016, amendments were affected in sections 30, 32 and 45 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which are not essential to be dealt with for the purpose of the instant application. By the Amendment Act of 2019, section 16(3) of the Act which gave right of preemption was repealed and section 16(4) was added which provided that all cases of proceedings pending before any of the authorities/tribunals/Courts shall be deemed to have abated and the purchase money together with the sum equal to 10% shall be refunded to the depositor without any interest. This Court by the its judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed in the case of Sudhakar Jha (supra) dismissed the application so far as challenge to the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 2016 as also the Amendment Act of 2019 was concerned. It was further held that cases arising out of an application under section 16(3) of the Act stand abated. The operative portion of the judgment in the case of Sudhakar Jha (sup