State of Bihar V. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar 1952 1 SCR 889

CASE BRIEF

APPELLANT- The State of Bihar

RESPONDENT- Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar

Decided on- 2 May, 1952

CASES REFERRED-

1. Abbott C.J. in Fox v. Bishop of Chester 107 E.R. 520, at p.527
2. Attorney-General v. Di Keyser’s Royal Hotel (1920) A.C. 508, 542
3. Central Control Board v. Cannon Brewery Co. Ltd. (1919) A.C. 744
4. Cincinnati v. Louisville etc., R. Co.(223 U.S. 390)
5. Hamabai Pramjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India [(1915) 42 I.A. 44.]
6. Julius v. Bishop of Oxford L.R. 5 H.L. 214
7. Madden v. Nelson & Fort Sheppard R. W. Co. (1899) A.C. 626
8. Maharaja Luchmeswar Singh v. Chairman of the Darbhanga Municipality 17 I.A. 90
9. Moran Proprietary Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Taxation for New South Wales (1940) A.C. 838, AT P.858
10. Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1952) S.C.R. 89
11. Sir Kameswar Singh v. The province of Bihar [A.I.R. 1950 Pat. 392.]
12. The Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Carvatenagaram (1874) 1 I.A. 364
13. The State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jethabai (1951) S.C.R. 51
14. The United Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum and Others [(1940) F.C.R. HO at p. 134.]

STATUTES REFERRED-

1. Constitution of India
2. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950

FACTS OF THE CASE-

1. That on 30 December, 1949 the Bihar Land Reforms Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Bihar and passed by both the houses. It received the President’s assent on 11 September, 1950.
2. That on 25 September, 1950 a notification u/s 3 of the Act was published stating that land belonging to the Respondent and two others had been vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Act.
3. That the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court of Patna requesting to declare the Act as unconstitutional and issue the writ of Mandamus on the State of Bihar.
4. That the High Court declared the Act as unconstitutional as violative of Article 14, which was appealed against in the Supreme Court.
5. That during the pendency of the appeal against the said decision, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1950 was passed which was again challenged as unconstitutional, but the Court negated the contentions.

ISSUES INVOLVED-

1. Whether the Bihar Legislature was competent to enact the legislation?
2. Whether the Act was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the Act contravened Article 31(1) of the Constitution?

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES-

1. APPELLANT
2. The Learned Attorney General submitted that the concepts of acquisition and compensation have different origins; one is a sovereign power of the State and the other is a natural right of the person deprived of his property. This right of compensation is not implicit in Entry 36.
3. He further urged that Entry 42 of the Concurrent List made it open to the Parliament or State Legislature to make law which may or may not provide for compensation in return for acquisitions of land.
4. He also submitted that it was beyond the scope of the Court to decide on bona fide or malafide of the Legislatures.
5. RESPONDENT
6. It was submitted that the Bihar Legislature was not competent to enact the impugned Act and the confiscation of the lands not being for public purpose rendered the Act unconstitutional. Also, the Act was a fraud on the Constitution and certain parts of it are vague and unenforceable.
7. It was further argued that Entry 36 of State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provided that no property can be acquired without requisite compensation in return. Also, the provisions of Articles 31(4), 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution have no bearing on the entry.
8. Further, for every land acquisition, there is a concomitant obligation to compensate for it and the Act’s illusory provisions in this regard render it unconstitutional and Article 31(4) does not protect it.
9. It was also urged that the powers conferred under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List has a duty coupled with it to pay compensation to the person deprived of his property.
10. The Counsel, Mr. Das argued that there was no public purpose behind the Act and no private property can be acquired without a public purpose. Also, there is no definite indication as to the public purpose of the Act and its enactment will only cause loss to a large community.
11. He further contended that the object of the Act was to acquire the properties of the Zamindars by compensation out of the money of the Zamindars as well. In addition to acquisition of their land by the Government, they would also have to pay again out of their own pocket.
12. Lastly, it was urged that if some provisions of the Act are void and unconstitutional, the whole Act must be declared ultra vires.

JUDGMENT-

The Supreme Court Bench comprising CJ Patanjali Shastri, Justices M.C. Mahajan, Mukherjea, Das and C. Aiyar held:

1. The Hon’ble Court observed that some provisions of the Act may be harsh and bad against the Zamindars but that does not render the whole Act a fraud on the Constitution.
2. On the above observation they held that Sections 4(b) and 23(f) are unconstitutional but the rest of the Act is valid. Also, a writ of Mandamus was issued to the State of Bihar to not give effect to the said provisions.
3. The Court explicitly said that the Bihar Legislature was competent to enact the legislation and the Act did not contravene Article 31(4) of the Constitution. Also, the acquisition of the lands was for public purpose and the subject matter of the Act fell under the ambit of Article 31(4).

RULE OF LAW-

The main point of law to be determined in the case was whether the enactment of The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was beyond the scope of the Bihar Legislature and if the impugned Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION-

The Hon’ble Court was right in upholding the constitutionality of the legislation as it has been pointed out innumerable times that the Court should favor more in the upholding constitutionality of a legislation unless and until it is proved otherwise.

If there is some part of a legislation that seems invalid or bad, and it is severable from the rest of the Act, the Court must declare those provisions as unconstitutional and uphold the rest of the legislation as valid. But if that part is so inextricably interwoven into the Act, then the whole of the Act must be struck down by the Court.