Civil Appeals Nos 310 and 311 of 1955
Appeals under Article 132 of the Constitution from the judgment and order dated the 6th April 1955 of the Assam High Court in Title Suits Nos 1  3 of 1955
N C Chatterji P N Mitter D N Mukerji and R R Biswas for the appellant in C A No 310 of 1955
PK Chatterji for the appellant in C A No 311 of 1955
MC Setalvad Attorney General for India section M Lahiri Advocate General of Assam and Naunit Lal for the respondent in both appeals
306 1956
April 11
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS C J
It is intended by this judgment to dispose of both the appeals mentioned above
The appeals have come up before us in circumstances which may shortly be recounted
On 6th December 1954 the appellant Raja Bhairabendra Narain Bhup of Bijni filed T section No 27 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri praying inter alia for a declaration that the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act 1951 Assam Act XVIII of 1951 as amended by Assam Act VI of 1954 was not validly passed was not law at all and was unconstitutional ultra vires and void and for a declaration that the impugned Act was at any rate inapplicable to the plaintiff s properties and the Notification purporting to be issued under section 31 of the impugned Act in respect of the plaintiff s properties was illegal ultra vires and void
On the 23rd December 1954 the appellant Sm
Bedabala Debi wife of Sri Nripendra Narain Choudhury as the Trustee of Chapor Trust estate filed T section No 34 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dbubri challenging the constitutionality of the same Act
In this suit there was no contention as there was in the Raja s suit that the Act if valid did not apply to the estate of which she was the Trustee
By two several orders made under article 228 by the Assam High Court on the 21st January 1955 and the 16th February 1955 respectively the said two suits were transferred to the High Court and renumbered as T section No 1 of 1955 and T section No 3 of 1955 respectively
The State of Assam duly filed its written statements in both the suits controverting the contentions set forth in the respective plaints
The High Court framed 11 issues in the Raja s TS No 1 of 1955
The issues common to the two suits were as follows 1Whether the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act 1951 Assam Act XV111 of 1951 and its 307 amendments are within the competence of the State Legislature and whether they were enacted according to law 2Whether the Notification No Rt245421 dated 19th July 1954 published in the Assam Gazette dated 21st July 1954 and issued under the Act aforesaid is valid 3Whether the said Act and its amendments infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under article 312 and article 14 of the Constitution or whether the legislation is protected under article 3 1 A and article 314 of the Constitution 4Whether the provisions of the Act and its amendments can be enforced against the properties in suit even if the legislation is held to be valid 5To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled The parties through their respective counsel agreed that the issues of law which did not depend upon adjudication of disputed facts should be heard and decided first leaving the other issues if necessary to be dealt with later
The two cases were beard by a Full Bench of the Assam High Court
The learned Judges answered issues 1 and 3 against the plaintiffs although not for identical reasons
They also answered issue 2 against the plaintiffs subject as to the Raja the plaintiff in TS No 1 of 1955 to the answer to issue 4
On the last mentioned issue the Bench held that the Act and the Notification being valid they could be enforced against Sm
Bedabala the plaintiff in T section No 3 of 1955
As regards the Raja the plaintiff in TS No 1 of 1955 the Bench held that as the question whether the properties of the Raja sought to have been notified were estate within the meaning of the impugned Act was one of fact issue 4 could only be decided as between the Raja and the defendant State upon evidence led in the case
In the result the Bench dismissed Sm
Bedabala s TS No 3 of 1955 with costs and directed the records of the Raja s TS No 1 of 1955 to be sent down to the court below for trial and disposal on the determination of issue 4 and other issues
In view of the importance of the ques 308 tion involved in the issues dealt with by the Bench they gave leave under article 132 to the plaintiffs in both the suits to appeal to this Court
Hence the present appeals
At the hearing before us arguments have proceeded on issues 1 2 and 3
It will be convenient therefore to deal with the issues seriatim
Re issue 1 Issue 1 it will be observed has two parts
The first relates to the competence of the State Legislature in enacting the impugned law and the second part relates to the question whether the impugned Act was enacted according to law
As a greater emphasis has been laid by learned counsel appearing in support of the appeals on the second part of this issue we take up and deal with that part first  The facts bearing on this part of the issue may now be summarised
On the 11th August 1948 a Bill called Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill was published in the Assam Gazette
On the 23rd September 1948 the Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Assam which was its only Legislative Chamber
The Bill was passed by the legislative Assembly on the 28th March 1949
The Governor of Assam acting under section 75 of the Government of India Act 1935 reserved the Bill for the consideration of the Governor General
In view of the then impending commencement of the Constitution the Governor General on the 25th January 1950
returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam with the remark that the Bill be reserved for the consideration of the President
On the 26th of January 1950 the Constitution of India came into force
Two days later that is to say on the 28th January 1950 the Governor of Assam actually received back the Bill
The Governor of Assam then reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President and sent the Bill to the President
In October 1950 the President returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam suggesting certain alterations
The Bill together with the suggested amendments was placed before the Legis lative Assembly of Assam
The Legislative Assembly 309 considered the suggested alterations and passed the Bill suitably amended
The amended Bill thereupon was again forwarded to the President and on the 27th July 1951 it received the assent of the President and became Assam Act XVIII of 1951
The Act was published in the Assam Gazette of the 8th August 1951
On the 11th September 1951 the Legislative Assembly passed a Bill amending Assam Act XVIII of 1951 in certain particulars and this Bill having been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President received the assent of the President on the 25th March 1954 and became Assam Act VI of 1954
The Acts were brought into force on the 15th April 1954 by a Notification issued by the Assam Government on the 9th June 1954
On the 19th July 1954 a Notification was published in the Assam Gazette under section 31 of the impugned Act declaring that the properties therein mentioned including the properties which formed the subject matter of the two suits would vest in the State free from all encumbrances with effect from the 15th April 1955
Two suits out of which the present appeals arise were then filed in December 1954
The second part of issue raises the contention that the impugned Act was not enacted according to law
The following reasons have been urged in support of this contention
aThe Bill was introduced in the Assembly without the sanction of the Governor which was required by section 2993 of the Government of India Act
b When the Bill was placed before the Governor General for his assent and he did not assent to it the assent must be deemed to have been withheld
His suggestion that it be reserved for the consideration of the President was void and of no effect
cThe Bill was not pending in the Legislature at the date of the commencement of the Constitution and it could not be reserved for the assent of the President
dThe Legislature functioning under the Constitution has no power to
consider the amendments  310 suggested by the President or to pass the same
eThe Bill having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and thereafter having been reserved for the consideration of the Governor General under the Government of India Act 1935 and the Governor General not having taken any constitutional action in respect of it as prescribedby that Act up to the time that Act was operating  the Bill lapsed on the repeal of the Government of India Act 1935 and the promulgation of the Constitution
fThe subsequent acts of the Governor the Legislative Assembly and the purported assent of the President are all unconstitutional and void
The reason under beading above may be disposed of in a few words The impugned Act undoubtedly provides for the compulsory acquisition of land and had therefore to comply with the requirements of section 299 of the Government of India Act 1935 which was in force at the date of the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Assembly of the province of Assam
Sub section 3 of that section provided that no Bill making provision for the transference to public ownership of any land should be introduced in either Chamber of Federal Legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor General in his discretion or in a Chamber of Provincial Legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor in his discretion
It was alleged that the pre vious sanction of the Governor of Assam had not been obtained before the Bill which eventually became the impugned Act was introduced in the Legislative Assembly
This allegation was controverted and the learned Advocate General of Assam produced before the High Court the minutes of the official proceedings in relation to the Bill
The Revenue Department s file No RT 1748 dated the 21st July 1948 shows that a note was put up before HE meaning obviously His Excellency the Governor seeking amongst other things his sanction for the introduction of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill 1948 under section 2993 of the Government of India Act 1935
At the foot of that note appear the 311 initials AH over the date 21st July 1948
It is not disputed that the initials AH stand for Akbar Hydari who was then the Governor of Assam
It is true that the words sanction granted were not endorsed on the note but there Can be no doubt that the initials were appended to the note by the Governor for no other purpose than for signifying his sanction to the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Assembly
Moreover under section 109 of that Act if there were no other defect vitiating it the impugned Act could not be challenged as invalid by reason only that previous sanction was not given by the Governor to the introduction of the Bill
In our judgment the first reason urged in support of the contention that the impugned Act was not enacted according to law has no force and must be rejected
The reasons b to f may conveniently be dealt with together
It will be recalled that after the Bill had been passed by the Assam Legislative Assembly on the 28th March 1949 it was presented to the Governor under section 75 of the Government of India Act 1935
Under that Act the Governor could do one of four things
He could in his discretion declare that he assented in His Majesty s name to the Bill or that he withheld assent therefrom or that he reserved the Bill for the consideration of the Governor General or he could in his discretion return the Bill together with a message requesting the Chamber or Chambers to reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof
In this case the Governor in his discretion reserved the Bill for the consideration of the Governor General and forwarded the Bill to him
Under section 76 of that Act the Governor General could do one of four things namely that he could in his discretion declare that he assented in His Majesty s name to the Bill or that he withheld assent therefrom or that he reserved the Bill for the signification of His Majesty s pleasure thereon or he could if in his discretion he thought fit direct the Governor to return the Bill to the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislature together with such a message as was mentioned in the preceding section
What happened in 41 312 this case is that in view of the impending constitutional changes the Governor General on the 25th January 1950 returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam advising him to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President
While the Bill was in transit and before it was actually received by the Governor which he did on the 28th January 1950 our Constitution came into force on the 26th January 1950
Our attention is drawn to article 395 of the Constitution whereby the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the Government of India Act 1935 together with all enactments amending or supplementing the latter Act but not including the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 were repealed
It is pointed out that there was no saving provision in that article and consequently it was a total repeal of the enact ments referred to therein
Reference is made to the well known observations of Tindal C J in Kay vs Godwin1 and the dictum of Lord Tenterden C J in Surtees vs Ellison2 and to Craies  Statute Law 4th Edition pp
347 to 348 and Crawford on Statutory Construction pp 599 to 600 all referred to by Fazl Ali J in Keshavan Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay3 and it is contended that the effect of the repeal of the Government of India Act 1935 was to obliterate that Act as completely as if it bad never been passed and as if it bad never existed except for the purpose of those actions commenced prosecuted and concluded whilst it was an existing law
The Bill in question not having become an Act before the 26th January 1950 the same it is urged must be regarded as having been wiped out of existence by reason of the repeal
There might have been a good deal of force in this contention had there been no other provision in the Constitution keeping this Bill alive
Article 389 of the Constitution provides that a Bill which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution was pending in the Legislature of the 1   Bing
21829   752   279
3   237 et seq
313 Dominion of India or in the Legislature of any Province or Indian State may subject to any provisions to the contrary which may be included in rules made by Parliament or the Legislature of the corresponding State under this Constitution be continued in Parliament or the Legislature of the corresponding State as the case may be as if the proceedings taken with reference to the Bill in the Legislature of the Dominion of India or in the Legislature of the Province or Indian State had been taken in Parliament or in the Legislature of the corresponding State
If therefore the Bill with which we are concerned was pending in the Legislature of Assam immediately before the commencement of the Constitution then clearly it was quite properly continued in the Legislature of the corresponding State
Two questions therefore arise namely 1 whether at the commencement of the Constitution the Bill was pending at all and 2 if it was whether it was pending in the Legislature of Assam
As to 1 election 30 of the Government of India Act 1935 made provision for the introduction of Bills in the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and section 73 provided for the introduction of Bills in the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislature
Section 32 of the Act laid down provisions for presentation of the Bill passed by the Federal Legislative Chambers to the Governor General and section 75 for the presentation of the Bill passed by the Provincial Legislative Chamber or Chambers to the Governor
Broadly speaking it may be said that a Bill begins to pend with its introduction in the Legislative Chamber and it ceases to pend a when it lapses under section 734 or b when the Governor declares that be assents in his Majesty s name to the Bill in which case the Bill ripens into an Act or c when the Governor declares that he withholds his assent therefrom in which case the Bill falls through or d when being reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the Governor General the Governor General acting under section 76 declares that he assents in His Majesty s name to the Bill in which case also 314 the Bill becomes an Act or e when having been so reserved by the Governor the Governor General declares that he withholds his assent therefrom in which case again the Bill falls through or f when the Bill having been reserved by the Governor General for the signification of His Majesty s pleasure thereon under section 761 the Governor under section 762 makes known by public notification that His Majesty had assented thereto in which case again the Bill becomes an Act and lastly g when no such notification is issued by the Governor within twelve months from the date on which it was presented to the Governor in which event also the Bill comes to an end
In short a Bill may be said to be pending as long as it does not lapse or it does not become an Act by
receiving the assent by the appropriate authority or is not terminated by the withholding of assent by such appropriate authority
The contention of the appellant is that when the Bill under consideration had been under section 76 reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the Governor General and sent to the Governor General and the latter did not declare his assent in the name of His Majesty to the Bill but sent it back to the Governor the Governor General must be deemed to have withheld his assent from the Bill
As already stated under section 76 the Governor General could have declared that he assented in the name of His Majesty to the Bill or that he withheld his assent therefrom or that he reserved the Bill for the signification of His Majesty s pleasure or he could have returned it to the Governor for being presented to the Chamber for reconsideration but he could not do anything else
Therefore his act of returning the Bill to the Governor with the suggestion to place it before the Presi dent was it is urged wholly unauthorised and amounted to his withholding his assent from the Bill
We are unable to accept this argument as sound
The Governor General knew that if he declared that he withheld his assent then the Bill would come to a termination and no further step could be taken in relation to that Bill
Therefore when the Governor 315 General returned the Bill to the Governor with the suggestion that the same Bill be reserved for the con sideration of the President the Governor General quite clearly evinced an intention that the Bill should remain alive for otherwise there could be no question of further reservation of the same Bill for the consideration of the President
The very suggestion of the further reservation of the Bill for the consideration of the President makes it impossible for us to hold inferentially or fictionally as we are asked to do that the Governor General had withheld his assent
It is clear on the facts that the Governor General neither assented to nor withheld his assent from the Bill
His action may have been unconstitutional but it cannot be regarded as amounting to a declaration that he was withholding his assent from the Bill for the assenting to or the withholding of assent from a Bill postulates a conscious and positive declaration that the assent is so given or withheld
The suggestion that the Bill be reserved for the consideration of the President clearly militates against the view that the Governor General had positively or even tacitly withheld his assent from the Bill
The very suggestion indicates that the Governor General intended that the Bill should remain pending so that it could be reserved for the consideration of the President and receive his assent or dissent
In the premises it cannot be held that the Bill ceased to be pending by reason of the assent of the Governor General having been withheld from it
In our view in the facts and circumstances of this case the Bill was pending at the date when our Constitution came into force
As to 2 Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that even if the Bill was pending it was certainly not pending before the Legislature of Assam
What then was the Legislature of the Province of Assam immediately before the commencement of our Constitution This involves a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Government of India Act 1935
The Government of India Act 1935 was a statute passed by the British Parliament
The 316 Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of the Sovereign and the three Estates of the Realm namely the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal who sit together in the House of Lords and the elected representatives of the people who sit in the House of Commons
When a Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament or is passed by the House of Commons in the manner provided by Parliament Act 1911 it becomes ready to receive the Royal assent
No Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament or in the last mentioned case by the House of Commons can become law and be entered in the Statute Book without the Royal assent
It is thus clear that according to British Constitutional theory the Sovereign is an integral part of Parliament
This notion is reflected in sections 17 55 and 56 of the British North America Act with regard to the Canadian Parliament and sections 69 71 and 90 of the same Act with regard to the Provincial Legislatures of that Dominion
The same idea was adopted in the Government of India Act 1935
Section 18 of this Act as it originally stood provided for a Federal Legislature consisting of His Majesty represented by the Governor General and two Chambers to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of Assembly
Section 60 provided for a Legislature for every Province consisting of His Majesty represented by the Governor and in certain Provinces two Chambers and in other Provinces one Chamber
As already stated the Province of Assam had only one Chamber the Legislative Assembly
The legislative procedure of the Chambers of the Federal Legislature was regulated by section 30 and of the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures by section 73 of the Government of India Act 1935
Procedure subsequent to the passing of the Bill by the Legislative Chamber or Chambers was governed by section 32 with regard to Bills passed by the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and by sections 75 and 76 with regard to those passed by the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures
It is true that section 18 of the Government of 317 India Act 1935 was adapted as contemplated by section 9 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 but there was no adaptation of section 60 of the Government of India Act 1935 which dealt with the Provincial Legislature
From the language used in section 18 as it stood before its adaptation and in section 60 it is quite clear that it was His Majesty himself who was really a constituent part of the Legislatures Federal and Provincial and that be was represented by the Governor General in relation to the Federal Legislature and by the Governor in the case of the Provincial Legislatures
His Majesty being thus an integral part of the Legislature Federal and Provincial when a Bill passed by the Chambers of the Federal Legislature or by the Chamber or Chambers of Provincial Legislatures was presented to the Governor General or the Governor under section 32 or sections 75 and 76 of that Act the Legislative process went on and unless and until assent was given or withheld by the Governor General or the Governor in the name of His Majesty there could be no escape from the position that in law and in reality the Bill was pending before His Majesty for the Governor General or the Governor was under that Act merely the agent representing His Majesty who was an integral part of the Legislature
This was made clear by the provision that when the Governor General or the Governor declared that be assented or that he withheld his assent such declaration had to be made in the name of His Majesty
Therefore whether the Bill was in the hands of the Governor or in the hands of the Governor General or was in transit between the one and the other on either way it must be taken to have been pending before His Majesty and therefore before the Legislature
The declaration giving or withholding assent was undoubtedly a continuation of the legislative process and until such declaration was made by the appropriate agency in the name of His Majesty obviously the Bill was pending and where in law and in reality could it at that stage be pending except before His Majesty as an integral part of the Legislature Such 318 being the position under article 389 read with the relevant provisions of the Government of India Act as we apprehend it this Bill could properly be continued in the Legislature of Assam after the commencement of our Constitution
Under article 168 of our Constitution every State has a Legislature consisting of the Governor and in certain States two Houses and in other States which include Assam one House
The Bill having been passed by the Legislative Assembly of Assam before the commencement of the Constitution all that was required to be done under the Constitution was to continue the legislative process under article 200
It was therefore competent for the Governor of Assam to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President and it was in order for the President under article 201 to direct the Governor to return the Bill to the Legislative Assembly of the State together with the requisite message and it was quite proper for the Legislative Assembly when the Bill was so returned to consider it accordingly
It follows therefore that when the Bill was again passed by the Legislative Assembly of Assam it was proper to represent the Bill to the President for his consideration and it was open to the President to give his assent to the amended Bill as he in fact did
Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on article 314 and to a passage in the Judgment of this court in Visweshwar Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh1 and it is contended that the word Legislature which occurs both in article 314 and article 389 means only the Chamber or Chambers of the Legislature and not the Governor or the Gov ernor General
We need not discuss the larger question as to the correct interpretation of the word Legislature as occurring in article 314 and suffice it to say that the very passage relied on by learned counsel makes it quite clear that the word Legislature is used in different senses in different articles and may be in different senses in different places in the same article and its meaning has to be ascertained 1  1034
319 keeping in view the subject or the context
In view of the provisions of sections 18 30 and 32 and sections 60 73 75 and 76 of the Government of India Act 1935 to which reference has been made we are clearly of opinion that the word Legislature has been used in article 389 in the larger sense namely comprising all the units that were concerned in the entire legislative process and included His Majesty represented by the Governor General or the Governor as the case might be
We find no reason to think that our Constitution intended only to keep alive the Bills which were actually pending before the Legislative Chamber or Chambers but not those which having been passed by the Legislative Chamber or Chambers had been presented to the Governor General or the Governor and were undergoing the final legislative process and awaiting the assent of His Majesty represented by the Governor General or Governor as the case might be
We are therefore of opinion although for different reasons that the High Court properly answered the first part of issue 1
Re issue 2 The Act having been properly passed by the Legislature of Assam the Government of Assam was well within their rights under section 3 of the Act to declare that the estates of the tenure holders specified in the Notification vested in the State free from all encumbrances
There is no suggestion that the properties of Sm
Beda Bala Devi the plaintiff in T section No 3 of 1955 were not estates within the meaning of the Act and accordingly the High Court has correctly decided this issue in favour of the State so far as that plaintiff is concerned
The Raja the plaintiff in T section No 1 of 1955 however raised the contention that his properties were not estates as defined in the Act and that being the subject matter of issue 4 this aspect of issue 2 was also left open until the decision of issue 4
As the High Court has sent down the suit to the court of Subordinate Judge for disposal and determination of other issues the final answer to issue 2 as regards the Raja will depend on the determination of issue 4 and must until then be kept open
42 320 Re issue 3 The Act and its amendments are challenged on the ground that they infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under article 312 and article 14 of the Constitution
If however the legislation is protected under article 31 A of the Constitution then the question of infringement of fundamental rights of the plaintiff under articles 312 and 14 will not arise
Article 314 protects an Act falling within it only against the contravention of the provisions of clause 2 of that article but not of those of article 14
Article 31 A however protects an Act falling within it even if it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III
It is obvious therefore that article 31 A gives greater and wider protection than does article 314
If therefore article 31 A applies no question can arise under article 312 or article 14 and in that case article 314 need not be invoked at all
What is protected by article 31 A is a law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of any such rights
There is no question that the impugned Act having been reserved for the consideration of the President has in fact received his assent and therefore the proviso to article 31 A does not come into play
The only question then is is the impugned Act a law providing for the acquisition of an estate or any rights therein The expression estate in relation to any local area has been made by clause 2 a of this article to have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area
The preamble to the impugned Act recites the expediency of providing for the acquisition by the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders and certain other interests in the permanently settled areas and certain other estates in the districts of Goalpara Garo Hills and Cachar in the State of Assam including their interests in forests fisheries hats bazars and ferries mines and minerals
Section 321 3 of that Act authorizes the State Government to declare from time to time by Notifications that the estate or tenure of a proprietor or tenure holder specified in the Notification shall stand transferred to and vest in the State free from all encumbrances
Section 4 lays down the consequences that are to follow
It is thus clear that the Act purports to be a law for the acquisition by the State of estates or tenures
The word estate as defined in section 2k means lands included under one entry in any of the general registers of revenue paving and revenue free lands prepared and maintained under the law for the time being in force by the Deputy Commissioner and includes revenue free lands not entered in any register
Under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Reg 1 of 1886 the Deputy Commissioner of every district is by section 48 enjoined to prepare and keep in the prescribed form and manner a general register of revenue paying estates a general register of revenue free estates and such other registers as the Government may direct
Section 49 provides that until such registers are prepared the Government may direct that the existing registers kept by or under the control of the Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be registers prepared under section 48
It will be noticed that what are to be entered in the general registers are revenue paying or revenue free estates
The word estate is defined by section 3b to include six kinds of lands described in the six clauses therein set out
This definition does not purport to be an exhaustive definition of estate but only includes certain enumerated items within the meaning of that expression
The word estate is defined in the Goalpara Tenancy Act Assam Act 1 of 1929 exactly in the same way as it is defined in the impugned Act namely as meaning lands included under one entry in any of the General Registers of revenue paying or revenue free lands prepared and maintained by the Deputy Commissioner
The properties of both the plaintiffs appellants are and have been in point of fact entered in the General Register
An estate within the meaning of the 322 Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1 of 1886 is also an estate within the meaning of the Goalpara Tenancy Act Act 1 of 1929 and of the impugned Act
The impugned Act therefore is a law providing for the acquisition by the State of an estate within the meaning of article 31 A and that being so its constitutionality or validity cannot be questioned on the ground of any contravention of any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights
There is no dispute that the lands comprised in the trust estate of Sm
Beda Bala Devi the plaintiff in T section No 3 of 1955 is an estate as defined in each of the aforesaid statutes including the impugned Act
The question whether the amount paid by the Raja the plaintiff in T section No 1 of 1955 is revenue or tribute whether his properties have been from before 1886 entered properly in the General Register of revenue paying estate and whether such properties come within the operation of the impugned Act are the subject matter of issue 4 but those questions have no bearing on the question whether the impugned Act is entitled to the protection of article 31 A
If the plaintiff Raja s properties are not estate as defined in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation or the Goalpara Tenancy Act or the impugned Act then the Notification under section 3 of the impugned Act will not affect him but that will be not because the impugned Act is not a law providing for the State acquisition of an estate but because the Raja s properties are not estates within the purview of the impugned Act
The fact that the definition of estate in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is only an inclusive and not an exhaustive definition that the Raja s properties have been in fact entered in the General Register of revenue paying lands and that the lands falling within any of the six categories enumerated in section 3 b of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation will certainly fall within the wider ambit of the definition of estate given in the impugned Act cannot be overlooked
The impugned Act is nonetheless a law providing for State acquisition of estate even if its 323 definition of estate comprises something more than what is comprised in the six categories included within that term in section 3b of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1886
In our judgment the impugned Act is fully protected by article 31 A
In the view we have taken on article 31 A it is unnecessary to discuss the question of the applicability of article 314
We have however to touch very briefly a few subsidiary points urged before us
It has been said that the impugned Act constitutes a colourable exercise of legislative power for while it purports to specify the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given it actually makes provisions which result in illusory compensation or no compensation at all
The doctrine of colourable legislation is relevant only in connection with the question of legislative competency as explained by this Court in K C Gajapati Narain Deb vs State of Orissa1
Here there is no question of any legislative incompetency
The gravamen of the present complaint is as to the quantum of compensation which in view of the article 31 A cannot be raised
Reference has been made to section 11 of the impugned Act according to which in the computation of the gross income is to be included the gross rent payable by the tenant immediately subordinate for the agricultural years preceding the date of vesting
It is argued that the Act is vague and indefinite because of the use of the word years in plural
The High Court has given cogent reasons with which we agree for holding that the word years in the plural has been retained in the Act by mistake or oversight and it should be read in the singular
Moreover the Act has since been amended retrospectively by section 4 of Assam Act V of 1956 and the question does not arise
The Act is also impugned on the ground of discrimination which offends article 14 of the Constitution
This question again is not open to the appellant in view of our decision on article 31 A Further 1  324 article 14 does not really help the appellant
It is said that the State can pick and choose the estate of one zamindar and leave out those of their favourite ones as indeed they have since done by withdrawing the Notification with respect to Gouripore and Prabatjoar estates
There is no force in this contention in view of the decisions of this court in Biswambhar Singh vs The State of Orissa and others1 and Thakur Amar Singh vs State of Rajasthan2
It is said that the Act only applies to some Lakheraj estates that is to say Lakheraj estates within the boundaries of a permanently settled estate but not to other Lakheraj estates
The acquisition of Lakheraj estates within the boundaries of permanently settled estates clearly facilitates the object of acquiring permanently settled areas and such Lakheraj estates within the boundaries of permanently settled estates constitute a class distinct from other Lakheraj estates not so situate and therefore the charge of discrimination cannot in view of the principles laid down by this court apply to the impugned Act
Lastly it is said that there is discrimination because of different scales of compensation which have been prescribed for different estates
It is not difficult to find a rational basis for such classification of proprietors of different income groups
We need not however dilate on this point for we have already held that the Act is not open to challenge on the ground of contravention of any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution
There was in the Raja s T section No 1 of 1955 a prayer for injunction restraining the State from taking possession of his estate
The High Court has rejected that prayer on grounds which appear to us to be quite cogent and convincing and as we see no substantial risk of irreparable loss to the Raja we do not consider it right to reverse even that order of the High Court
For reasons stated above both these appeals are dismissed with costs
As the two appeals were heard together there will be one set of costs of bearing to be apportioned equally between the two appellants
1 1954 SCR 842
2   316


Summary:
The appellants by two suits which were heard by a Full Bench of the Assam High Court challenged the Constitutional validity of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 as amended by the Assam Act VI of 1954
The Assam Legislative Assembly had passed the Bill on March 28 1949
It was presented to the Governor and reserved by him for the consideration of the Governor General who in view of the impending constitutional changes on January 25 1950 returned the Bill to the Governor suggesting that it might be reserved for the consideration of the President
While the Bill was in transit and before it actually reached the Governor the Constitution came into force
The Governor reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President and sent it to him
The President returned the Bill suggesting certain alterations
The State Legislative Assembly considered them and passed the Bill suitably amended
It received the President s assent on July 27 1951 and became an Act
On September 11 1951 the State Legislative Assembly passed an amending Bill which was assented to by the President
The Act as amended was brought into force on April 15 1954 and a Notification was issued by the State Government under the impugned Act declaring that the properties of the appellants along with those of others would vest in the State
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned Act was not within the competence of the State Legislature it was not enacted according to law and infringed the fundamental rights of the appellants under articles 312 and 14 of the Constitution
The High Court repelled these contentions and they were reiterated in appeal
Held that the impugned Act was passed according to law its 40 304 provisions were constitutionally valid and the decision of the High court must be affirmed
That the repeal of the Government of India Act 1935 by article 395 of the Constitution could not wipe out the Bill as it was immediately before the commencement of the Constitution pending before the Governor General andor the Governor who represented His Majesty the King who was a part of the Provincial Legislature and was therefore pending before the Provincial Legislature and consequently the State Legislature of Assam was competent under article 389 to continue the same
That although the Governor General might not have acted constitutionally under section 76 of the Government of India Act 1935 in suggesting that the Bill might be reserved for the President s consideration his action in the absence of a positive declaration to that effect could not amount to a withholding of assent under that section and effect a termination of the bill contrary to his express intention indicated by the suggestion itself that it should remain pending
That under the Government of India Act 1935 His Majesty the King was an integral part of the Legislature and when the Bill was presented to the Governor or the Governor General under section 75 or section 76 of the Act in due course of legislation and neither of them gave or withheld assent in the name of His Majesty it remained pending both in law and reality before his Majesty and therefore before the Legislature and could properly be continued by the State Legislature after the commencement of the Constitution
The Governor was therefore within his powers in reserving it for the President and the subsequent enactment of the Bill was in accordance with the Constitution
That the word Legislature  is not used in the same sense in different articles of the Constitution or even in different parts of the same article and its exact meaning has to be ascertained with reference to the subject matter on the context and in article 389 it is used in the larger sense so as to comprise the entire legislative machinery including His Majesty represented by the Governor General or the Governor and does not mean merely the Legislative Chamber or Chambers
The Constitution intended to keep alive not merely Bills which were actually pending before the Legislative Chamber but also Bills such as the present that had reached the final stages of the legislative process and were awaiting assent of the Governor General or the Governor representing His Majesty
Visweshwar Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 SCR 1020 referred to
That the impugned Act was a law providing for the acquisition of estates by the State within the meaning of article 31 A of the Constitution and was as such fully protected by it and its validity could not be questioned on the ground of any contravention of any 305 of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights
That the Act could not in the absence of any question as to legislative incompetency be impugned as a colourable exercise of legislative power on account of the provisions it made for payment of compensation and any question relating to the quantum of compensation would be barred under article 31 A of the Constitution
CGajapati Narain Deb vs State of Orissa 1954 SCR 1 referred to
That article 14 of the Constitution could not really help the appellants it being no longer open to them to contend in view of the decisions of this Court that the State could pick and choose and thus discriminate between one estate and another
Biswambhar Singh vs The State of Orissa 1954 SCR 842 and Thakur Amar Singh vs The State of Rajasthan 1955 2 SCR 303 referred to
That in view of the decisions of this Court the Act could not be said to discriminate by reason of its application being limited to such Lakheraj estates alone as fell within the boundaries of permanently settled estates and not extending to other Lakheraj estates as the former constituted a distinct class by themselves and acquisition of them facilitated the object of the Act
Nor could the provision for different scales of compensation prescribed for different estates amount to discrimination as there is a rational basis for such classification of proprietors of different income groups