DHARAMDEO versus BIJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 12-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
DHARAMDEO 
v. 
BIJARAT AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters patent Appeals) (Amendment) 
Act, 1972-S.2-Legislative compet~nce-Challenged-Whether impugned Act 
A 
B 
is within legislative competehce of State legislatu~eld, Yes-There is no 
discrimination violating Art. i4 of Constitution of lndia,--i'rocedure prescribed C 
is only supplemental or residual to main purpose of the Act. 
The validity of the Ordinance was challenged on the ground of 
legislative competency, as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was 
urged that the procedure prescribed is in violation of the Code ~f Civil I 
Procedure; that the trial provided under the Act is unjust, unreasonable D 
and unfair and that it offends the right to fair hearing and the CPC, as 
the Letter Patent Appeal was taken away under the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Since It is a matter relating to land reform and land, it 
Is covered by Schedule 7, List II, Item Nos. 14 and 18. Therefore, the 
impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature. 
Since the legislature is competent to enact the law, all the agricultural 
holdings covered under the Act are equally regulated thereunder. There-
E 
fore, there is no discrimination violating Art. 14. [622·El 
F 
1.2. The procedure prescribed in the Act is only supplemental or 
residual to the main purpose of the Act. Civil Procedure Code is in the 
Concurrent List. The act received assent of the President. The legislature, 
therefore, is competent to provide procedure in the implementation of the 
provisions of the Act. The summary procedure having been prescribed for G 
early disposal of these cases, causes minimum inconvenience to the 
litigants, which is just and fair procedure. It is, therefore, reasonable and 
fair to the parties. Elaborate procedure like trial need not necessarily be 
provided as is in vogue in civil suits. The time consuming process was 
sought to be curtailed and fair procedure was streamlined. [622-G·Hl 
H 
621 
A 
B 
c 
D 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
1.3. Creation of the hierarchy of the court is one of legislative policy. 
With a view to curtail multiplicity of appeals, the legislature stepped in 
and saved structural appeals. The legislature limited the remedy providing 
for only one appeal to the High Court before a single Judge against the 
orders of the Board of Revenue or consolidation authority etc. [623-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 255 of 
1976. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.1973 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Special Appeal No. 128 of 1973. 
Pramod Swamp for the Appellants. 
Raj Kr. Gupta, H.P. Sharma and Rajesh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have perused the order of the High Court dated November 24, 
1975. The only question raised relates to the validity of the Ordinance 
which has already been upheld by the Full Bench of that Court. It was 
argued relating to legislative competency. Since it is a matter relating to 
land reform and land, it is covered by schedule 7, List II, item Nos. 14 and 
E 18. As a result, the impugned Act is within the legislative competence of 
the State legislature. It is then contended that it is violative of Art. 14. We 
find no force in the contention. Since the legislature is competent to enact 
the law, all the agricultural holdings covered under the Act are equally 
regulated thereunder. Therefore, there is no discrimination violating Art. 
F 
14. It is next urged that the procedure prescribed is in violation of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, a Central Act. We find no force in the contention. The 
procedure is only supplemental or residual to the main purpose of the Act. 
CPC is in the Concurrent List. The Act received assent of the President. 
The legislature, therefore, is competent to provide procedure in the im-
plementation of the provisions of the Act. Next submission is that the trial 
G provided under the Act is unjust, unreasonable and unfair. We find that 
the summary procedure having been prescribed for early disposal of these 
cases, causes minimum inconvenience to the litigants, which is just and fair 
procedure. It is, therefore, reasonable and fair to the parties. Elaborate 
procedure like trial need not necessarily be provided as is in vogue in civil 
H suits. The time consuming process was sought to be curtailed and fai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.