RAM PRASAD NARAYAN SAHI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 1129 · Decided: 20-02-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

8.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1129 
of taxation by.the 1:-itate of Bombay. Eal'h party \rill 
bear and pay its own costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed: 
RAM PRASAD NARAYAN SABI AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C. J., MuKHERJEA, VrnAN BosE, 
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 13, 14-Sathi Lands (lles-
toralion) Art, 1950-Law dcclarinu "ltlcment of land with parti-
mlm· individtial void-Validity-Infrinuement of fundamental 
riuht to cq1wl prntection of the laws - Di.1cri111ination-Pre.1mn1>tion 
of rea8onablencss. 
The Court of Waras granted to the appellants a large area 
ol 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, 
\lie Working Committee of the Indian National Congress express-
ed 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 succes-
sors 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 Stale 
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 impugll'ed enactment 
singled out the appellants and deprived them of their right to 
• 
• 
1953 
'l.'he State of Boni-
bay and A not.her 
v. 
'llftc United 
,\{ otors (India) 
Ltd. and Others. 
Bhagwari J. 
• 
1130 
SUPREiIE COURT REPORTS 
(1953] 
1953 
have this dispute adjudicated upon by a duly coostitubed Court, 
the enactment contravened the provisions of article 14 of the 
Ram Pr<Uad 
Constitution which guarantees to every citizen the equal protec-
Narayan Salii tion of the laws, and was void. 
and Another 
Legislation which singles out a particular individual from his 
v. 
Tiu, Rtalp, of 
Bihar and 
Other8. 
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 tbat a Legis-
Patan.iaJi Sa.tri lature understands and correctly appreciates tbe needs of its own 
0. J. 
people, yet when on the face of a statute tbere is no classifi-
cation at all, and no attempt has been made to select any in-
dividual 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. 
Amecr1lnnissa Beu nm v. Jlfah/Joob Begum [1953] S.C.R. 404 and 
Gnlf of Colorado etc. Co. v. Ellis [165 U.S. 150] referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
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. 
JV!. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and 
Jliahabir Prasad, Advocate-General of Bihar (G. N. 
Joshi, with them) for the respondents. 
1953. February 20. The court delivered judgment 
as follows :-
p ATANJALI SASTRI c. J.-I concur in the judgment 
which my learned brother Mukherjea is about to deli-
ver, but I wish to add a few words in view of the 
important constitutional issue involved. 
The facts are simple. The appellants obtained a 
settl

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