Civil Appeal No 59 of 1952
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 3rd January 1952 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prosad JJ
in an application under article 226 of the Constitution registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No 204 of 1950
Original Petition No 20 of 1952 under article 32 of the Constitution was also heard along with this appea
P R Das B Sen with him for the appellants
M C Setalvad Attorney General for India and Mahabir Prasad Advocate General of Bihar G N Joshi with them for the respondents
February 20
The court delivered judgment as follows  PATANJALI SASTRI C J I concur in the judgment which my learned brother Mukherjea is about to deliver but I wish to add a few words in view of the important constitutional issue involved
The facts are simple
The appellants obtained a settlement of about 200 bikhas of land in a village known as Sathi Farm in Bettiah Estate in Bihar 1131 then and ever since in the management of the Court of Wards on behalf of the disqualified proprietress who is the second respondent in this appeal
The lands were settled at the prevailing rate of rent but the salami or premium payable was fixed at half the usual rate as a concession to the appellants who are said to be distant relations of the proprietress
The appellants paid the salami and entered into possession of the lands on the 2nd November 1946 and  have since been paying the rents regularly
On the 13th June 1950 the Bihar Legislature passed an Act called the Sathi Lands Restoration Act 1950
The genesis of this legislation is thus explained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar the first respondent herein
Report against the settlement of these lands with the petitioners as well as some other lands to Sri Prajapati Mishra and the unlawful manner in which these settlements were brought about was carried to the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress which body after making such enquiry as it thought fit came to the conclusion that the settlement of these lands with the petitioners was contrary to the provisions of law and public policy and recommended that steps should be to taken by the State of Bihar to have these lands restored to the Bettiah Estate
In pursuance thereof a request was made to the petitioners and to the said Prajapati Mishra to return the lands to Bettiah Estate
While Sri Prajapati Mishra returned the land settled with him the petitioners refused to do so
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Sathi Lands Restoration Bill runs thus As it has been held that the settlement of Sathi lands in the District of Champaran under the Court of Wards with Sri Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and Shri Ram Rekha Prasad Narayan Sahi is contrary to the provisions of the law and as Sri Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and Sri Ram Rekha Narayan Sahi have refused to return the lands to the Bettiah Estate Government 1132 have decided to enact a law to restore these lands to the Bettiah Estate The impugned Act consists of three sections
Section 21 declares that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force  the settlement obtained by the appellants is null and void and that no party to the settlement or his successor in interest shall be deemed to have acquired any right or incurred any liability thereunder
Sub section 2 provides that the appellants and their successors in interest shall quit possession of the said land from the date of commencement of this Act and if they fail to do so the Collector of Champaran shall eject them and restore the lands to the possession of the Bettiah Wards Estate
Subsection 3 provides for the refund of the amount of salami money and the cost of improvement if any to the lessees by the estate on restoration to it of the lands in question
In the case lodged in this court for the State of Bihar the legislation is sought to be justified and its validity maintained on the following grounds  It is well settled that a Legislature with plenary powers so long as it enacts law within the ambit of its powers is competent to enact a law which may be applicable generally to society or to an individual or a class of individuals only 
It is submitted that grants of the lands belonging to the Bettiah Estate made by the Court of Wards were of doubtful validity hence they have been dealt with by the impugned Act 
No evidence has been adduced by the appellants except a bare allegation which has not been substantiated that about 2000 acres of land were settled to show that persons in similar circumstances with whom similar settlements were made were treated differently
It is submitted that in the context the impugned Act has a reasonable basis of classification
 The decision of the majority of this Court in Chiran vs The Union of India1 is relied on in suport of these contentions In that case however the 1   1133 majority felt justified in upholding the legislation though it adversely affected the rights and interest of the shareholders of a particular joint stock company because the mismanagement of the company s affairs prejudicially affected the production of an essential commodity and caused serious unemployment amongst a section of the community
Mr Justice Das and I took the view that legislation directed against a particular named person or corporation was obviously discriminatory and could not constitutionally be justified even if such legislation resulted in some benefit to the public
In a system of government by political parties I was apprehensive of the danger inherent in special enactments which deprive particular named persons of their liberty or property because the Legislature thinks them guilty of misconduct and I said in my dissenting opinion Legislation based upon mismanagement or other misconduct as the differentia and made applicable to a specified individual or corporate body is not far removed from the notorious parliamentary procedure formerly employed in Britain of punishing individual delinquents by passing bills of attainder and should not I think receive judicial encouragement
 My apprehensions have come true
Recently we had before us a case from Hyderabad Civil Appeal No 63 of 1952Ameerunnissa Begum vs Mahboob Begum  where the duly constituted legislative authority of that State intervened in a succession dispute between two sets of rival claimants to the estate of a deceased person and  dismissed  the claim of the one and adjudged the Property to the other by making a special  law  to that effect
And now comes this case from Bihar of an essentially similar type
The appellants assert title to certain lands in Bettiah Estate under a settlement which they claim to have lawfully obtained from the Court of Wards while it is now alleged on behalf of the Estate that the settlement was not for the benefit of the Estate and was contrary to law as the Court of Wards did not then  apply its 1 Since reported as  147 1134 mind  to that question
This is purely a dispute between private parties and a matter for determination by duly constituted courts to which is entrusted in every free and civilised society the important function of adjudicating on disputed legal rights after observing the well established procedural safeguards which include the right to be heard the right to produce witnesses and so forth
This is the protection which the law guarantees equally to all persons and our Constitution prohibits by article 14 every State from denying such protection to anyone
The appellants before us have been denied this protection
A political Organization of the party in power decides after making such enquiry as it thought fit that the settlement in question was  contrary to the provisions of law and public policy  and the State Legislature basing itself on such decision purports to declare the settlement  null and void  and directs the eviction of the appellants and the restoration of the lands to the Estate
The reasons given for this extraordinary procedure are indeed remarkable for their disturbing implications
It is said that there was agitation amongst the tenants of the locality and opposition on the part of persons living in the locality against the appellants  possession of the lands which led to breach of the peace and institution of criminal cases 
Whenever then a section of the people in a locality in assertion of an adverse claim disturb a person in the quiet enjoyment of his property the Bihar Government would seem to think that it is not necessary for the police to step in to protect him in his enjoyment until he is evicted in due course of law but the Legislature could intervene by making a  law  to oust the person from his possession
Legislation such as we have now before us is calculated to drain the vitality from the rule of law which our Constitution so unmistakably proclaims and it is to be hoped that the democratic process in this country will not function along these lines
MUKHERJEA J
This appeal which has come before us on a certificate granted by the High Court of 1135 Patna under article 132 1 of the Constitution is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of that court dated 3rd January 1952 by which the learned Judges dismissed a petition of the appellants under article 226 of the Constitution
The prayer in the petition was for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party not to take any action under an Act passed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1950 and known as The Sathi Lands Restoration Act which was challenged as void and unconstitutional
To appreciate the points in controversy between the parties to the proceeding it may be necessary to narrate the material facts briefly
Maharani Janki Koer the respondent No 2 in the appeal is the present proprietress of an extensive Estate in Bihar known by the name of Bettiah Raj which is held and managed on her behalf by the Court of Wards Bihar constituted under Bengal Act IX of 1879
On 19th July 1946 the appellants who are two brothers and are distantly related to the Maharani made a representation to the Government of Bihar through the Manager of the Estate praying for settlement in raiyati right of 200 bighas of land preferably in Sathi farm or Materia farm along with a certain quantity of waste lands
On 20th July 1946 the then Manager of the Wards Estate wrote a letter to the Collector of Champaran recommending that the applicants might be given settlement of the lands as prayed for without payment of any selami
The Collector however did not
agree to this proposal nor did the Commissioner of the Tirhut Division and the matter then came up for consideration before the Board of Revenue which recommended that settlement might be made with the applicants provided they were agreeable to pay selami at half the usual rates
On 14th October 1946 the recommendation of the Revenue Board was accepted by the Provincial Government and six days later the Court of Wards accepted a cheque for Rs 5000 from one of the lessees towards payment of the selami money and rent for the year 1354 FS
On the 2nd November 1946 possession 1136 of the lands was given to the appellants and on the 18th of November following the Manager of the Court of Wards recorded a formal order fixing the selami of the land at Rs 3988 annas odd and rent at Rs 797 annas odd per year
On the same day a Hisab Bandobasti form which is the usual form employed in the Estate for raiyati settlements was signed by the Circle Officer on behalf of the Court of Wards and by one of the lessees for himself as well as the constituted attorney of the other lessees
It is not disputed that the lessees continued to possess the lands since then on payment of the stipulated rent
On the 3rd June 1950 the Bihar Legislative Assembly passed an Act known as The Sathi Lands Restoration Act which received the assent of the Governor on the 13th June 1950
The object of the Act as stated in the preamble is to provide for restoration of certain lands belonging to the Bettiah Wards Estate which were settled contrary to the provisions of law in favour of certain individuals
Section 2 which is the only material section in the Act enacts in the first sub section that the settlement of Sathi lands described in the schedule to the Act on behalf of the Bettiah Court of Wards Estate with the appellants as per order of the Manager of the Estate dated the 18th November 1946 is declared null and void and no party to the settlement or his successor in interest shall be deemed to have acquired any right or incur any liability under the same
The second sub section embodies a direction to the effect that the said lessees and their successor in interest shall quit possession of the lands from the date of the commencement of the Act and if they fail to do so the Collector of Champaran shall eject them and restore the lands to the possession of the Bettiah Estate
The third and the last sub section provides that the Bettiah Wards Estate shall on restoration to it of the lands pay to the lessees the selami money paid by them and also such amount as might have been spent by them in making improvements on the lands prior to the commencement of the Act
1137 In substance therefore the Act declared the lease granted by the Bettiah Wards Estate to the appellants on the 18th November 1946 to be illegal and inoperative and prescribed the mode in which this declaration was to be given effect to and the lessees evicted from the lands
On the 28th August 1950 the appellants filed the petition out of which this appeal arises under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Patna challenging the validity of The Sathi Lands Act and praying for a writ upon the respondents restraining them from taking any steps under the said Act or from interfering with the possession of the appellants in respect of the lands comprised in the lease
It was asserted by the petitioners that in passing the impugned legislation the Bihar Legislature actually usurped the power of the judiciary and the enactment was not a law at all in the proper sense of the expression
The other material contentions raised were that the legislation was void as it conflicted with the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under articles 14 191 f and 31 of the Constitution
The respondents opposite parties in resisting the petitioners  prayer stated inter alia in their counter affidavit that the settlement of the lands in question with the appellants by the Court of Wards was not for the benefit of the estate or advantage of the ward and that the transaction was entered into by the Wards Estate without properly applying their mind to it
It was stated further that after the settlement was made there was a good deal of agitation among the tenants in the locality which led to the institution of certain criminal proceedings
In these circumstances the matter was brought to the notice of the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress and the Working Committee was of opinion that the settlement of these lands was against public interest
The lessees therefore were asked to vacate the lands and on their refusal the legislation in question was passed
The petition was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Ramaswami and Sarjoo Pershad JJ
Ramaswami J 1138 decided all the points raised by the petitioners against them and held that the Act was neither ultra vires the Bihar Legislature nor was void under article 131 of the Constitution
The learned Judge was further of opinion that it was not a fit case for interference by the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution
The other learned Judge expressed considerable doubts as to whether a legislation of this type which in form and substance was a decree of a court of law was within the competence of the legislature and warranted by the Constitution
He agreed however with his learned colleague that the case was not such as to justify an interference of the High Court in exercise of its discretionary powers under article 226 of the Constitution
The remedy of the petitioners might lie according to him in a regularly constituted suit
The result therefore was that the appellants  petition was dismissed and it is the propriety of this judgment that has been assailed before us in this appeal
Mr P R Das who appeared in support of the appeal put forward at the forefront of his arguments the contention raised on behalf of his client in the court below that the impugned legislation was void by reason of its violating the fundamental rights of the appellants under article 14 of the Constitution
The point appeared to us to be of substance and after hearing the learned Attorney General on this point we were satisfied that the contention of Mr Das was well founded and entitled to prevail irrespective of any other ground that might be raised in this appeal
There have been a number of decisions by this court where the question regarding the nature and scope of the guarantee implied in the equal protection clause of the Constitution came up for consideration and the general principles can be taken to be fairly well settled
What this clause aims at is to strike down hostile discrimination or oppression or inequality
As the guarantee applies to all persons similarly situated it is certainly open to the legislature to classify persons and things to achieve particular legislative objects 1139 but such selection or differentiation must not be arbitrary and should rest upon a rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature has in view
It cannot be disputed that the legislation in the present case has singled out two individuals and one solitary transaction entered into between them and another private party namely the Bettiah Wards Estate and has declared the transaction to be a nullity on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of law although there has been no adjudication on this point by any judicial tribunal
It is not necessary for our present purpose to embark upon a discussion as to how far the doctrine of separation of powers has been recognised in our Constitution and whether the legislature can arrogate to itself the powers of the judiciary and proceed to decide disputes between private parties by making a declaration of the rights of one against the other
It is also unnecessary to attempt to specify the limits within which any legislation dealing with private rights is possible within the purview of our Constitution
On one point our Constitution is clear and explicit namely that no law is valid which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution
There can be no question therefore that if the legislation in the present case comes within the mischief of article 14 of the Constitution it has got to be declared invalid
This leads us to the question as to whether the impugned enactment is in fact discriminatory and if So whether the discrimination made by it can be justified on any principle of reasonable classification  The appellants it is not disputed are only two amongst numerous leaseholders who hold lands in raiyati right under the Bettiah Wards Estate
It cannot also be disputed that the lands were settled with them on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue after due consideration of the respective views put forward by the Manager of the Estate on the one hand and the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner on the other
The appellants are admittedly paying rents which are normally assessed on lands of similar 1140 description in the locality
The learned AttorneyGeneral referred in this connection to the provisions of section 18 of the Court of Wards Act and argued that the lease in dispute was granted in contravention of that section
Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act provides as follows The Court may sanction the giving of leases or farms of any property under its charge  and may direct the doing of all such other acts as it may judge to be most for the benefit of the property and the advantage of the Ward
Apparently it makes the Court of Wards the sole judge of the benefit to the estate or advantage of the ward
But it is said that the Court of Wards did not apply its mind properly to this matter when it granted lease to the appellants at half the usual rate of selami
The Wards Estate thus suffered loss to the extent of nearly Rs 4000 which could legitimately have been recovered from any other lessee
This contention does not impress us much the utmost that can be said is that this could have been put forward for what it is worth and with what result nobody can say as a ground for setting aside the lease in a court of law
But that is not the question which is relevant for our present purpose at all we were not called upon to decide whether or not the lease was a proper one or beneficial to the estate
The question for our decision is whether the statute contains discriminatory provisions so far as the appellants are concerned and if so whether these discriminations could be reasonably justified  It is clearly stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit made by the appellants in support of their petition that there are numerous other persons to whom leases on similar terms were granted by the Bettiah Wards Estate
Clauses b c and d of paragraph 9 of the affidavit stand thus b In this long course of management by tile Court of Wards leases or settlement of lands used to be made without any selami on proper rent
This state of affairs continued down to recent times during 1141 which period thousands of bighas were so settled with numerous persons c in 1945 the authorities decided to make settlements on large scale with war returned soldiers on a selami equal to 5 times the average rent prevailing in the locality for similar lands d in 1946 1947 1948 and 1949 a good number of settlements covering about 2000 acres of lands were settled on the basis of IO years  rental obtaining in the locality and in some cases for good reasons at five years  rental In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit put in on behalf of the respondents these statements are not denied
In fact they are admitted and the only thing said is that these leases were granted in due course of management
Ramaswami J has dismissed this part of the case by simply remarking that no details of these settlements were furnished by the appellants but no details were at all necessary when the correctness of the statements was not challenged by the respondents
It will be interesting to note that the respondents themselves in paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit mentioned the name of Shri Prajapati Mishra as one of the persons with whom similar settlement of lands was made by the Bettiah Estate
It is stated in that paragraph that the cases of the appellants as well as of Prajapati Mishra were brought to the notice of the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress and the Committee came to the conclusion that both the settlements were contrary to the provisions of law
Thereupon a request was made to both these sets of lessees to restore their lands to the Estate but whereas Prajapati Mishra returned his lands to the Bettiah Estate the appellants refused to do so
In reply to this statement the appellants stated in their rejoinder that the said Prajapati Mishra did not vacate the land but created a trust in respect of the same he being the chairman of the board Of trustees and the lands were still in possession of the board of trustees
Strangely as it seems the State of Bihar raked up this matter again in a 148 1142 further affidavit where it was admitted that the said Prajapati Mishra did execute a trust and that the trustees took possession of the property
It was stated however that Prajapati Mishra who was one of the trustees did actually surrender the lands in two installments but the other trustees did not and hence legal advice was being taken to find out ways and means of recovering the property from them
The whole thing smacks of disingenuousness and the State of Bihar it seems was not well advised in rely ing upon facts like these in their attempt to repel the appellants  attack on the legislation on the ground of discrimination
Be that as it may there is no doubt that the appellants were not the only lessees under the Bettiah Estate who got settlement of lands at a selami of five years  rental
On the sworn statements of the appellants which are not challenged by the other side it appears that there are numerous persons occupying the same position as the appellants who however were not subjected to this expropriatory legislation
But the vice in this legislation goes much deeper than this
It is not merely a question of treating the appellants differently from the other lessees under the Wards Estate with whom settlements of land have been made on similar or identical terms
If a lease has been given by a Court of Wards which is not for the benefit of the estate or advantage of the ward it is for a court of law to decide whether it is warranted by the terms of the Court of Wards Act
If the lessor proceeds to cancel the lease the lessee has a legal right to defend his claim and satisfy the court that the lease is not in contravention of law
If on the other hand the lessee is actually dispossessed he has a right to sue in court for recovery of possession of the property on establishing that he has been illegally turned out
The dispute here is a legal dispute pure and simple between two private parties
What the Legislature has done is to single out these two individuals and deny them the right which every Indian citizen possesses to have his rights adju dicated upon by a judicial tribunal in accordance with 1143 the law which applies to his case
The meanest of citizens has a right of access to a court of law for the redress of his just grievances and it is of this right that the appellants have been deprived by this Act
It is impossible to conceive of a worse form of discrimination than the one which differentiates a particular individual from all his fellow subjects and visits him with a disability which is not imposed upon anybody else and against which even the right of complaint is taken away
The learned Attorney General who placed his case with his usual fairness and ability could not put forward any convincing or satisfactory reason upon which this legislation could be justified
It is true that the presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment and it has to be presumed that a Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people
But when on the face of a statute there is no classification at all and no attempt has been made to select any individual or group with reference to any differentiating attribute peculiar to that individual or group and not possessed by others this presumption is of little or no assistance
to the State
We may repeat with profit what was said by Mr Justice Brewer in Gulf Colorado etc
Co vs Ellis1 that to carry the presumption to the extent of holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reason for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile and discriminatory legislation is to make the protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment a mere rope of sand
In our opinion the present case comes directly within the principle enunciated by this court in Ameerunnissa Begum vs Mahboob Begum2 
The result is that we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court
A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue directing the respondents not to take any steps in pursuance of The Sathi Lands Restoration Act of 1950 or to interfere with the possession of the appellants in respect to the lands 1 165 U section 150
2 1953 SCR 404
1144 comprised in the lease referred to in that Act
The appellants will have their costs in both courts
VIVIAN BOSE J I am in entire agreement with my Lord the Chief Justice and with my learned brother Mukherjea
GHULAM HASAN J
I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice and with my brother Mukherjea
BHAGWATI J I entirely agree with the judgment just delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice and my brother Mukherjea and there is nothing which I can usefully add
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Court of Wards granted to the appellants a large area of land belonging to the Bettiah Raj which was then under the management of the Court of Wards on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue at half the usual rates
A few years later the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress expressed the opinion that the settlement of the lands was against public interest and in 1950 the Bihar Legislature passed an Act called the Sathi Lands Restoration Act 1950 which declared that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force the settlement granted to the appellants shall be null and void and that no party to the settlement or his successors in interest shall be deemed to have acquired any right or incurred any liability thereunder and empowered the Collector to eject the appellants if they refused to restore the lands
The appellants alleging that the Act was unconstitutional applied under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bihar restraining it from taking any action under the Act
It was found that there were several other settlements of lands belonging to the Bettiah Raj on similar terms against which the Government had taken no action Held that the dispute between the appellants and the State was really a private dispute and a matter to be determined by a judicial tribunal in accordance with the law applicable to the case and as the Legislature had in passing the impugned enactment singled out the appellants and deprived them of their right to 1130 have this dispute adjudicated upon by a duly constituted Court the enactment contravened the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every citizen the equal protection of the laws and was void
Legislation which singles out a particular individual from his fellow subjects and visits him with a disability which is not imposed upon the others and against which even the right of complaint is taken away is highly discriminatory
Though the presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment and it has to be presumed that a Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people yet when on the face of a statute there is no classification at all and no attempt has been made to select any individual or group with reference to any differentiating attribute peculiar to that individual or group and not possessed by others this presumption is of little or no assistance to the State
Ameerunnissa Begum vs Mahboob Begum  and Gulf of Colorado etc
Co vs Ellis  referred to