9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (5) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbhanga. The respondent claims to have taken settlement of the said plots in the year 1943 from the land-lords of Raghopur Estate of which the said plots formed a part. After the coming into force of the Act, the said Estate vested in the State of Bihar. Thereafter, one Sheonandan Jha and some other villagers of Lakshmipur filed a petition before the Collector alleging that the alleged settlement was not true, and that in fact the settlement was nominally effected only after January 1, 1946. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under s. 4(h) of the Act, held that the said settlement was actually made after January 1, 1946, and that it was only a paper transaction; having annulled the said settleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the second proviso added by the amendment to s. 4(h) and contends that under the said proviso the order of the Collector cannot take effect nor possession taken thereunder, unless the said order has been confirmed by the State Government and that in the instant case there has not been any such confirmation. Further he questions the constitutional validity of the said section on the ground that it infringes the fundamental right of the respondent under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution and is not saved by Art. 31A thereof. 5. The second contention of learned counsel for the respondent may be disposed of first. Under Art. 31A of the Constitution, no law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ests in the State, with the result that the rights of the transferor and the transferee therein are extinguished. The said result accrues on the basis that the said land continued to be a part of the estate at the time the Act came into force. That apart, the section is a part of the Act designed to extinguish or modify the rights in an estate, and the power conferred on a Collector to cancel a transfer of any land in an estate is only to prevent fraud and to achieve effectively the object of the Act. This question was directly raised and answered by this Court in Thakur Raghubir Singh v. State of Ajmer [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 478. There, the constitutional validity of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Ajmer II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was made, the words, figures and commas at any time after the first day of January, 1946, shall be inserted and shall be deemed always to have been inserted; and (c) the words and with the previous sanction of the State Government shall be omitted; (v) to clause (h) as amended above, the following provisos shall be added, namely :- Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause, if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure : Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake possession before his order is confirmed. The short question is whether the second proviso, added by the Amending Act, is retrospective in operation, that is, whether the order of the Collector made before the Amending Act, though made with the previous sanction of the State Government, would still require for its taking effect a subsequent confirmation by the State Government. 11. Learned Counsel for the State contends that the amendments made by s. 3(iv)(a) and (b) are retrospective, but the amendment made by s. 3(v) of the Amending Act is prospective. This contention appears to be sound, both in letter as well as in spirit. The different phraseology used in cls. (a) and (b) of sub-s. (iv) of s. 3 of the Amending Act in the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy made by the Collector before the Amending Act, the previous sanction obtained would suffice, and in respect of an order made after the Amending Act, a subsequent confirmation by the State Government is required. 12. Even so, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the High Court, presumably in view of its acceptance of the respondent's preliminary point, did not consider the question whether the inquiry had been made by the Collector in strict compliance with the provisions of the section, and whether the previous sanction of the State Government was obtained before he made the said order. In the affidavit failed in support of the petition in the High Court there is no specific allegation that no such inquiry has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
