STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus ASHISH KUMAR ROY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 03-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
ASHISH KUMAR ROY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 31A, 323(A) & (B), Entry 18 to 
List II of 7th Schedule/West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal 
Act, 1997; Ss. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 : 
Constitution of Land Reforms Tribunal-Provisions conferring 
jurisdiction, power and authority-Constitutionality of-Held: Since it is 
permissible for the Tribunals/Courts to perform supplementary functions/ 
A 
B 
c 
role without exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts/Supreme Court 
under Articles 2261227 or Article 32 of the Constitution, State Legislature D 
competent to constitute such Tribunal-Legislature competent to make laws 
with regard to Entry 18 in List II of 7th Schedule of the Constitution 
including law connected with land reforms-A Tribunal could deal with 
disputes arising under any law relating to not only law for agrarian reforms 
but also with law relating to land reforms-It appropriately falls within 
the ambit of Article 323B(2)(d) of the Constitution. 
E 
Article 141-Law laid down by the Supreme Court-Held: It is not 
open to High Court to express its views inconsistent with the law laid down 
by the Apex Court. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Agrarian reforms '-Meaning of in the context of Article 31-A of the 
Constitution of India. 
F 
The Government of West Bengal enacted the West Bengal Land G 
Reforms and Tenancy Act. Respondent-Bar Association challenged 
certain provisions of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution, and filed a 
writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge of the High Court 
struck down the provisions as ultra vires the Constitution. Hence the 
present appeal filed by the State of West Bengal. 
H 
665 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended by the appellant-State that the observations and 
directions given by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the 
case of L. Chandra Kumar were law declared within the meaning of 
Article 141 of the Constitution and thus binding on the High Court; and 
that the High Court could not give any views inconsistent with/contrary 
B to law so laid down. 
c 
Respondent submitted that the Tribunal constituted under the 
provisions of the Act is not a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 
323(B) (2)(d) of the Constitution of India. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Single Judge of the High Court was not right in 
disposing of the observations of the Constitution Bench in the case of 
L. Chandra Kumar* by side-stepping them. The opinion pronounced by 
D the Constitution Bench of this Court and the directions given clearly 
amount to law declared within the meaning of Article 141 of the 
Constitution of India. It was not open to the Single Judge of the High 
Court to take any view inconsistent with or deviating from the law thus 
laid down. The findings made and the directions given by the Single 
E Judge of the High Court are inconsistent with the law laid down by this 
Court, hence set aside, as the law bid down by this Court was binding 
on the High Court. (674-B; 676-C-D] 
F 
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 261, 
followed. 
1.2. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra 
Kumar pointed out that 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B; to the 
extent they exclude totally the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme 
Court under Articles 226, 227 and 32 of the Constitution, were 
G unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the said provisions was saved 
by the well-known process of reading down the provisions. This Court 
held that while the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227, 
and that of the Supreme Court under Article 23, could not be totally 
excluded, it was yet constitutionally permissible for other Courts and· 
H Tribunals to perform a supplementary role in discharging the powers 
-
.. 
ST ATE v. ASHISH KUMAR ROY 
667 
conferred on the High Court and the Supreme Court by articles 226/ A 
227 and 32 of the Constitution, respectively. Hence, it was held that as 
long as Tribunals constituted perform a supplementary role, without 
exclusion of the jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 
and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the 
validity of the legislation constituting such Tribunals could not be B 
doubted. It was in these circumstances that a direction was given that 
the Tribunals woul

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