Judgment Case ID: 414

Judgment:
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. P.K. Chatterji	 for the appellant in C. A. No. 311 of 1955. M.C. 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 3(1) 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 T.S. No. 1 of 1955. The issues common to the two suits were as follows: (1)Whether 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? (2)Whether the Notification No. Rt./24/54/21 dated 19th July 1954 published in the Assam Gazette dated 21st July 1954 and issued under the Act aforesaid is valid? (3)Whether the said Act and its amendments infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under article 31(2) and article 14 of the Constitution; or whether the legislation is protected under article 3 1 A and article 31(4) of the Constitution? (4)Whether 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? (5)To 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 T.S. 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 T.S. 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 T.S. No. 3 of 1955 with costs and directed the records of the Raja 's T.S. 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 3(1) 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. (a)The Bill was introduced in the Assembly without the sanction of the Governor which was required by section 299(3) 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. (c)The 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. (d)The Legislature functioning under the Constitution has no power to. consider the amendments ' 310 suggested by the President or to pass the same. (e)The 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 prescribed/by 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. (f)The 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 17/48 dated the 21st July 1948 shows that a note was put up before "H.E."	 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 299(3) of the Government	 of India Act	 1935. At the foot of that note appear the 311 initials "A.H." over the date 21st July	 1948. It is not disputed that the initials "A.H." 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 Godwin(1) and the dictum of Lord Tenterden	 C. J. in Surtees vs Ellison(2) 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 Bombay(3) 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. (2)[1829] ; 	 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 73(4) 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 76(1)	 the Governor under section 76(2) 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 31(4) and to a passage in the Judgment of this court in Visweshwar Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh(1) and it is contended that the word "Legislature"	 which occurs both in article 31(4) 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 31(4) 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 31(2) 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 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 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 31(4). If	 therefore	 article 31 A applies no question can arise under article 31(2) or article 14 and in that case article 31(4) 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 2(k) 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 3(b) 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 3(b) 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 31(4). 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 Orissa(1). 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 others(1) and Thakur Amar Singh vs State of Rajasthan(2). 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] S.C.R. 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 31(2) 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 and/or 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] S.C.R. 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. C.Gajapati Narain Deb vs State of Orissa	 ([1954] S.C.R. 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] S.C.R. 842) and Thakur Amar Singh vs The State of Rajasthan	 ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 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.