1979 (3) TMI 216 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
2. Discrimination and procedural aspects under Sections 12-A, 87, and 4(c) of the Act.
3. Conflict between Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.
4. Applicability of Section 4(c) to the instant suit.
5. Excessive delegation of power to the State Government.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Act, particularly Sections 12-A, 87, and 4(c), arguing that the Act was discriminatory. They contended that the Act allowed untrained officials to determine questions of title, which should be within the purview of the Civil Courts. The court upheld the Act, stating that the mere creation of a special forum does not imply discrimination. It was noted that various laws create special forums to expedite processes and achieve legislative objectives. The court found that the classification under the Act was based on an intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved, thereby passing the tests of permissible classification.

2. Discrimination and Procedural Aspects under Sections 12-A, 87, and 4(c) of the Act:
The petitioners argued that the Act was discriminatory as it barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and vested the power to decide title disputes in administrative authorities. The court held that the creation of a special forum for consolidation purposes was not discriminatory. The court emphasized that the objective of the Act was to expedite consolidation proceedings and that involving Civil Courts would delay the process. The court referred to precedents where special forums were upheld and concluded that the Act did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Conflict between Sections 15 and 16 of the Act:
The petitioners contended that there was a conflict between Sections 15 and 16, where Section 15 made the certificate of transfer conclusive proof of title, while Section 16 treated the confirmed scheme as having only presumptive value. The court clarified that Section 15 related to proof of title and was conclusive, whereas Section 16 dealt with matters not covered by Section 15 and had presumptive value. The court held that there was no conflict and even if there was, Section 15 would prevail due to its clear and explicit language.

4. Applicability of Section 4(c) to the Instant Suit:
The petitioners argued that their suit under Section 72 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act was not covered by Section 4(c) of the Act. The court examined the nature of the suit and concluded that it involved a declaration of rights and interests in lands subject to consolidation proceedings. Therefore, the suit abated under Section 4(c). The court also addressed concerns about composite suits with multiple reliefs, stating that only the portion of the suit related to land rights would abate, while independent reliefs would proceed.

5. Excessive Delegation of Power to the State Government:
The petitioners argued that the Act conferred unguided and arbitrary power on the State Government to initiate consolidation proceedings in villages of its choice. The court rejected this argument, stating that the guidance for the exercise of power was available in the preamble and general scheme of the Act. The court noted that administrative and financial constraints necessitated piecemeal application of the law, which was not illegal or ultra vires.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application, upholding the validity of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. The court found that the Act did not suffer from the vice of discrimination, and the procedural changes were necessary to achieve the legislative objective of expedited consolidation of agricultural lands. The court also emphasized the need for a State Law Commission to address local legislative issues effectively.