The constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019, besides other amendments, repealing section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was challenged in the case of Sudhakar Jha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2024 (3) PLJR 403 (DB)]. A Division Bench of Patna Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy had dismissed the challenge to its constitutional validity. The judgement was delivered October 13, 2023. it was authored by Justice Sarthy. Notably, in this 174 page long judgement 127 pages are names of parties and advocates. The petitioners has also challenged the orders passed by different authorities including the Additional Collector, the Commissioner of the Division and the Bihar Land Tribunal, all of which arise out of applications for pre-emption filed under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The petitioners had claimed that the amendments are against the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. It is . It is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioners had claimed that Section 16(3) of the Act has been repealed in an arbitrary manner without assigning any cogent reasons and the amendment is arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable and ultra vires the parent Act. It should not be made applicable with retrospective affect. The amendment effected has not only been done in excess of the power granted under the Constitution; assent of the President; without which it is otiose, has not been taken before its promulgation. The amendment affected was beyond the competence of the State legislature and on account of repeal of section 45B of the Act, the statutory remedy of appeal/revision as was earlier available has been taken away without providing for any forum for adjudication of the disputes. They prayed that the amendments be declared ultra vires the Constitution and the same be set aside.
The High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punyadeo Sharma & Ors. vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. [2022 (1) BLJ 434 (SC)] to hold that all cases or proceedings which may be pending before any authority or Court including the High Court stood abated and the amount deposited shall be refunded in the manner as provided under section 16(4) of the Act.
The Supreme Court in the case of Punyadeo Sharma has held as follows :-
“4. The question examined by the Division Bench of the High Court was whether an application for pre-emption was filed within three months of the registration as required by Section 16(3) of the Act or was it required to be filed within three months of the day of execution of the sale deed i.e. 9.2.1990. However, the said question does not survive for consideration in view of the subsequent development whereby the right of pre-emption itself has been taken away by the Bihar Act No. 6 of 2019 when the Act was amended. The Amending Act reads thus:
………………………………
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the right of pre-emption, after the Amending Act, abates as Sub-section 4(i) is specifically dealing with all pending proceedings before whatsoever forum. Therefore, the right of pre-emption will stand abated on and after 25.2.2019 including the proceedings which were pending before any forum.
………………………………
12. …Any other Court is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court. ……………….Thus, keeping in view the object of the Statute, purpose to be achieved and the express language of the Amending Act, all proceedings of pre-emption under the Act pending before any authority under the Act or before any Court shall stand abated.
13. Consequently, the present appeals are allowed. The entire pre-emption proceedings stand abated. It shall be open to the respondents to withdraw 10% of the amount deposited by them in terms of Section 16 of the Act in accordance with law.”
In Narendra Kumar @ Sanjeev Kr. Sinha vs. The State of Bihar (2024), the High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy has held that the case arising out of an application under section 16(3) of the Act stands abated. It shall be open to the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by him in terms of section 16 of the Act in accordance with law. The judgement was delivered August 21, 2024. Justice Sarthy authored the judgement. Y.C. Verma, Senior Advocate represented the petitioner. There were seven respondents besides the State of Bihar. They are: Member Board of Revenue, Patna, the Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif, the Additional Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif, the Sub Divisional Officer, Nalanda, Biharsharif, Ramashraya Prasad, Sherpur, Mahamadpur, Asthawan, Nalanda and Krishnaballabh Singh.
No comments:
Post a Comment