Case: Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup Vs. The State Of Assam(With Connected Appeal)

1. 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.        2. On4 the appellant Raja Bhairabendra Narain Bhup of Bijni filed T. S. No. 27 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri praying, inter alia, for a declaration that Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act 18 of 1951) as amended by Assam Act 6 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 plaintiffs properties and the Notification purporting to be issued under S. 3(1) of the impugned Act in respect of the plaintiffs properties was illegal, ultra vires and void.        3. On4 the appellant Sm. Bedabala Debi wife of Sri Nripendra Narain Choudhury as the Trustee of Chapor Trust estate filed T. S. No. 34 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri challenging the constitutionality of the same Act. In this suit there was no contention, as there was in the Rajas suit that the Act, if valid, did not apply to the estate of which she was the Trustee.

Reasoning:
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 statue passed by the British Parliament. The 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 House 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 Ss. 17, 55 and 56 of the British North America Act, with regard to Canadian Parliament and Ss. 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 thel 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 S. 32 with regard to Bills passed by the Chamber of the Federal Legislature and by Ss. 75 and 76 with regard to those passed by the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures. It is true that S. 18, Government of India Act, 1935 was adapted as contemplated by S. 9, Indian Independence Act, 1947, but there was no adaptation of S. 60, Government of India Act, 1935 which dealt with the Provincial LegislatureThe Act having been properly passed by the Legislature of Assam, the Government of Assam was well within their rights under S. 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. S. 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. S: 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), his 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 openThe Act and its amendments are challenged on the ground that they infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under Art. 31. (2) and Art. 14 of the Constitution. If, however, the legislation is protected under ArticleA of the Constitution then the question of infringement of fundamental rights of the plaintiff under Arts. 31 (2) and 14 will not arise. Article 31 (4) protects an Act falling within it only against the contravention of the provisions of clause (2) of that Article but not of those of Art. 14. Article, 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 Art.A gives greater and wider protection than does Art. 31 (4). If, therefore, Art.A applies no question can arise under Art. 31 (2) or Art. 14 and in that case Art. 31 (4) need not be invoked at all23. The Act is also impugned on the ground of discrimination, which offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. This question again is not open to the appellant in view of our decision on Art.r Art. 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 courtinBiswambhar Singh v. State of Orissa, 1954 SC 139   (AIR V 41) (F), and Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1955 SC 504   (514) ( (S) AIR V 42) (G)24. 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 Act25. 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 the provisions of Part III of the Constitution26. There was in the Rajas T. S. 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