SIRISIA STHAL, IMLI CHATI, MUZAFFARPUR & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 11-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i 
-~ 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 683 
SIRISIA STHAL, IMLI CHATI, MUZAFFARPUR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1001 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY, 11 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and· 
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 -
Vires of certain 
provisions of the Act challenged in writ petition - High Court c 
upheld the provisions - On appeal, held: Order of High Court 
1 
was without application of mind to the challenge raised - Hence 
matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. 
Appellant filed writ petition challenging vires of 
certain provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of D 
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High :E 
Court, the Court 
HELD: Since the High Court has not applied its mind 
to the challenge raised, and has erroneously referred to 
the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, it would be 
appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High 
F 
Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in 
accordance with law. [Para 6] [685-E, F] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1001 
' 
of 2002. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2001 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 10233 of 
1995. 
S.B. Sanyal, Ranjan Mukherjee for the Appellants. 
683 
H 
-
--\' 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Saurabh Kirpal and Gopal Singh for the Respondents. 
r"" 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court 
B dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. The writ 
petition was filed challenging vi res of certain provisions of Bihar 
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of 
t 
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The writ petition 
filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that no 
c return was filed, and after preparation of draft statements they 
could have got opportunity to file objection. It was held that the 
writ petition was filed challenging vires of an enactment which 
... 
was included in 9th Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950 
t--
(in short the 'Constitution'). 
D 
2. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the 
appellants submitted that since the vires of certain provision 
>. 
were being challenged and the amendment to Section 29 of 
the Act was under challenge, the question of filing return did not 
arise. Further it was submitted that the amendment was not 
"l 
E included in the 9th Schedule as was observed by the High Court. 
Earlier, all the writ petitioners were granted exemption under 
Section 29(2) (a)(ii) of the Act to hold an extra unit required for 
~
the purpose of performing religious rites and its maintenance 
but by the amendment the same was taken away. 
-
F 
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other 
)---
f 
hand submitted that though the amendment was not part of the 
9th Schedule to the Constitution, yet the effect of the amendment 
is that the power to exempt stood deleted with retrospective 
effect. 
G 
4. Prayers in the writ petition were to the following effect: 
"It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously 
be pleased to admit this application, issue Rule NISI 
against the respondents calling upon them to show-cause 
H 
as to why the Section 2 of the impugned ordinance 
''f 
SIRISIA STHAL, IMLI CHATI, MUZAFFARPUR & ORS. 
685 
v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
'....., 
(Annexure 1) and the directions contained in Annexure 2 A 
be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India and 
quashed after hearing the party or parties, rule may be 
made absolute; 
And/or 
ii) That such order, writ, direction or order may be passed 
B 
to your Lordships as may deem fit and proper in the facts 
and circumstances of the case." 
5. Subsequently, the prayers were amended in the following 
terms: 
c 
"It is, therefore, prayed that the prayed portion of the writ 
application be kindly permitted to be amended as followed 
in the light of the facts stated above:-
"That after first prayer in the writ petition, the following be D 
added:-
_.. 
RULE NISI be also issued against the respondents calling 
~ 
upon them to show cause as to why Section 2 of the 
impugned Bihar Act 8 of 1997 (Annexure 3 and the 
directions conta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.