THE STATE OF BIHAR versus MAHARAJADHIRAJA SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH OF DARBHANGA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 05-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
889 
the learned English Judges in the first tea case would 
not be without relevance on the question of sentence 
in many cases of this kind. There can, I think, be no 
doubt that businessmen who are not lawyers 
might 
well be misled into thinking that the Ordinance and 
the Act did not intend to keep the Order of 1944 alive 
because the Order related to certain specified spices 
while the Ordinance and the Act changed the .nomen-
clature and limited themsleves to "foodstuffs", a term 
which, on a narrow view, would not include con-
diments and spices. 
However, these observations are 
not relevant here because we are not asked to restore 
either the conviction or the sentence. In view of that, 
there will be no further order and the acquittal 
will be left as it stands. 
·. 
\ 
Order accordingly. 
Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta. 
Agent for the respondent : M. S. K. Sastri. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
fl. 
' 
MAHARAJADHIRAJA SIR KAMESHW AR SINGH 
OF DARBHANGA AND OTHERS 
(CASES Nos. 305 TO 348 OF 1951 AND PETITION No. 612 OF 1951) 
[PATANJALI 
SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Bihar Land Reforms Act (XXX of 1950)-Law for abolition of 
zamindaries-Validity-Necessity to provide for compensation 
and 
of public purpose-Jurisdiction of Court to enquire into validity-
Delegation of legislative powers-Fraud on the Constitution-Consti-
tution of India, 1950-Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951-
Arts. 31, 31-A, 31-B, 362, 363-Sch. VII, 
List II, entries 18, 36 
and List Ill, entry 42-Construction-Spirit of the Constitution-
Right of eminent domain-"Law", "Legislature", "Public purpose", 
meanings of-Convent 
of 
merger-Compulsory 
acquisition 
of 
private property of Ruler-Acquisition of arrears of rent payinl 
50%-Deduction for cost of works-Legality. 
115 
1952 
The State of 
Bombay 
v. 
Virkumar 
Gulabchand 
Shah. 
Bose /. 
1952 
May 2, 5. 
• 
1952 -
The State of 
Bihar 
v. 
Maharaia-
dhira;aSir 
Kameshwar 
Singh 
of Darbhanga 
and Others. 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
Held 
per 
Curiah 
(MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA 
and 
CHANDRA· 
SEKHARA AtYAR JJ.)-Thc Bihar 
Land 
Reforms 
Act, 
XXX 
of 
1950, 
is not unconstitutional or void except with regard to the 
provisions in s. 4(b) and s. 23(f) thereof. 
The provisions of 
s. 
4(b) 
and 
s. 
23(f) 
are 
unconstitutional. 
Per 
PATANJALI 
SASTRI 
C. J. and DAs J~The whole 
of the 
Bihar 
Land 
Reforms 
Act 
of 
1950, 
including 
the provisions contained in 
s. 4(b) and s. 23(f) is constitutional and valid. 
Per 
PATANJALI 
SASTRI C. J., 
MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, 
D1i.s 
and CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR JJ.-(i) The Bihar Land Reforms 
Act, XXX of 1950, is not a law in respect of a matter 
mention-
ed in entry 18 of List II, viz., "lands and land 
tenures", 
but a 
law in respect of "acquisition of property", a matter covered 
by entry 36 of List II. 
(ii) The obligation 
to 
pay 
compensation 
for 
property 
acquired 
by the State is not an obligation imposed by entry 36 
of List II read by itself or in conjunction with entry 42 of List III 
or by the spirit of the Constitution. 
Consequently, an 
objection 
to the validity of a statute in resixct of acquisition of property 
on the ground that it does not provide for payment of compen-
sation is an objection on the ground that it contravenes the 
provisions of. art. 31(2) and the jurisdiction of the Court to 
entertain such an objection in respect of a statute mentioned 
in 
the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution is barred by art. 31(4), 
art. 
31-A and art. 31-B 
of the Constitution. Per DAs /.-
Assuining 
that 
the 
obligation 
to 
pay 
compensation 
is 
also 
implicit in entry 36 of List II, in itself or read with entry 42 of 
List III, even then the validity of the Act cannot be questioned 
by reason of arts. 31( 4), 31-A and 31-B. 
(iii) Section 32(2) of the Act which empowers the State 
Government 
to 
frame 
rules 
providing 
for "the proportion 
in 
which compeinsation shall be payable in cash and in bonds and 
·the manner of payment pf such compensation" 
does 
not involve 
any delegation of legislative powers especially as 
the 
legislature 
has itself provided in s. 32(2) that the compensation shall be 
payable in cash or in bonds . or partly in cash and partly in 
bonds and fixed the number of instalments in which it should be 
paid. 
The words "subject to" in entry 36 of List II only mean 
that whenever a law is made by a State Legislatu

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