LexRAJA BHAIREBENDRA NARAYAN BHUP versus THE STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
303
RAJA BHAIREBENDRA NARAYAN BHUP
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM
(with connected appeal)
[S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR,
B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.]
Zamindaries, Acquisition of-Bill passed by the Provincial
Legislative Assembly reserved by the Governor for consideration of the
Governor General-Returned by the Governor General sil{lgesting
reservation for the President--'Promiilgation of the Oonstitution-
Effect-Oompetency of the Governor to reserve-State Legislative
Assembly, if could continue the Bill-Constitutional validity of the
Act-Provisions, if discriminatory and violative of fundamental
rights-Assam State Acqitisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 (Assam
Act XVIII of 1951) as amended by Assam Act VI of 1954-0onsti·
tution of India, Arts. 389, 395, 31( A), 31(2), 14-Government of
India Act, 1935 (26 Geo.~· Oh. 2), ss. '15, '16.
The appellants by two suits, which were heard by 11 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 ce1·tain 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 con·
tended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned Act was not
within the competence of the Sta.ts Legislature, it was not enacted
according to law and infringed the fundamental rights of the appel·
!ants under Arts. 31(2) and 14 of the Constitution. Tbe High Court
repelled these contentions and they were reiterated in appeal.
Held, that the impugned Act was passed according to law, its
~o
1956
April 11
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
provisions were constitutionally valid and the decision of the High
Court must be affirmed.
Raja Bha,rebendra
,
Narayan BhuP
That the repeal of the Government of Indrn Act, 1935, by Art.
v
395 of the Constitution could not wipe out the Bill as it was, im·
The State~! Assam mediately 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
Art. 389 to continue the same.
That although the Governor General might not have acted
constitutionally under s. 76 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
in suggesting that the Bill might be reserved for the President's con-
sideration, 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 Genernl u.nder s. 75
or s. 76 of the Act, in due couree 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 Gov·
emor was, therefore, within his powers in reserving it for the Presi-
dent aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.