The State of

Bombay

R. S. Nanji

lmamJ.

January 20

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1956]

of the High Court is set aside.

Costs in the appeal in this Court shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent as directed by the order granting Special Leave. Each party, however, will bear his own costs in the High Court.

RAM CHANDRA PALA! AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS.

(S. R. DAS, ACTING C.J., BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHA-

DAS, B. P. SINHA AND JAFER IMAM JJ.]

Fundamental Bights, Infringement of-Acts creating virtual State monopoly in motor transport busine:s-Application of one Act to certain groups of owners and another to certain others operating different routes in different localities-If makes for discrimination and inequality-If restricts rights to hold property and practise trade and business-Notification terminating permits for taking over transp01t business, if confiscates property without cmnpensation-

Freedom of inter-state and intra-state trade, if a fundamental right- Constitution of India, hts. 14, 19(1)(!) and (g), 31(2), 301, 305- 0rissa Motor Vehicles (Regulation of Stage Carriage and Public Carrier's Services) Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947), s. 4-0rissa Motor Vehicles (Amendment) A.ct, 1948 (Orissa Act I of 1949), s. 1.

The petitioners were owners of Stage Carriage Services holding permits under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.

The State Government of Orissa, in pursuance of its scheme of a Nationalised State Transport as contemplated by the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Regulation of Stage Carriage and Public Carrier's Services) Act of 1947 (Orissa Act XXXVI of 194 7) and Orissa Act I of 1949, which amended the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, issued notifications under those Acts intimating the owners of different Stage Carriage Services operating different routes within the districts of Orissa that ,.. with effect from the 1st ol January, 1955, either the Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd., or the State Transport Service, formed under the two Acts 1 would exclusively operate the said routes. The owners impugned the Acts as unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights. It was contended that the two Acts, whose provisions were materially different, discriminated against them and in favour of the aforesaid transport services as also in their arbitrary application to different zones and territories of the State and contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was lurther contended that the provisions of the Acts and rules framed thereunder infringed Arts- 19(1)(f) and (g) by putting restrictions on the rights to hold property and to practise trade and business, that the Notifications

purporting to take away their transport business amounted to con 1956 fiscation without compensation and infringed Art. 31(2) and lastly, that th~ impugned Acts violated freedom of inter-state and intra- Ram Chandra state trade guaranteed by Art. 301 of the Constitution.

Palai and others

Held, that the owners of Stage Carriage Services operating The Stat:~/ Orissa a particular route or in a particular area formed a sepe.rate group or and others class by themselves and so long as each one of such a group or class was governed by the same Act and treated alike, there could be no discrimination. The Government was the best judge as to which of the two impugned Acts, or the Act of 1939 which they sought to amend, should, in its administrative convenience, be e.pplied to a particular locality or what mode it should follow for the implementation of its scheme and such zonal or territorial divisions it thought fit to make for that purpose according to different circumstances prevailing in different localities could not be held to be either discriminatory or violative of the equal protection of law.

That' the position of the permit: holders under the two Acts was not on a par, e.nd was materially different and they fell into two distinct classes and, consequently payment of compensation under one and non-payment under the other did not make for discrimination.

That the contention that the impugned Acts created a. monopoly in favour of either the Joint-Stock Company or the State by ousting the private Stage Carriage Services from the business and thereby infringed Art. 19(1)(f) was no longer tenable in view of Art.

19'( 6) of the Constitution as a.mended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951.

Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U. P. ((1955] 1 S.C.R. 707), held inapplicable.

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. The State of Madhya Pradesh ([1955] S.C.R. 589), applied.

That the provisions of the impugned Acts could not be held to contravene Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution as the Act of 194 7 did provide for compensation for premature termination and under the Act of 1949, renewal could not be claimed as a matter of right and any deprivation of proprietary right would be by authority of law.

That freedom of inter-state or intra-state trade guaranteed by Art. 301 of the Constitution is not one of the fundamental rights that can be enforced under Art. 32 of the Constitution and Art. 305 as a.mended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act of 1955 was a complete answer to that contention of the petitioners.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 604, 605, 647-649, 663, 671 and 692 of 1954.

Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for.the enforcement of tundamental rights.

Ram Ch"nd,.a

S. P. Sinha, (R. Patnaik, with him) for the petitioners in P. Nos. 604, 605, 649 and 663 of 1954.

Palaiandothers M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, (Porus

Th S I v",, 0 .

A. Mehta and P.G. Gokhale, with him) for the respon- • ta e o, r.ssa d t . )) th p . . and others en S Ill a e etit1ons.

1956. January 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI J.-These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution are filed by the owners of Stage Carriage Services plying their buses on several routes in the districts of the State of Orissa impugning the provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and Orissa Act I of 1949 as violative of their fundamental rights.

They raise a common question of law and can be disposed of by one judgment.

The State of Orissa embarked upon a scheme of Nationalised State Transport and, as a first step towards it, enacted an Act styled the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Regulation of Stage Carriage and Public Carrier's Services) Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947), which modified the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the better regulation of Stage Carriage and Public Carrier's Services in the Province of Orissa.

This Act envisaged the formation of a Joint-Stock Company in which the. Central and the Provincial Governments shall together have controlling interests for providing in stages or in one stage a more efficient administration of the {lntire stage carriage and public carrier's services in the Province of Orissa. Such a Company was to be authorised to run stage carriage and public carrier's services in the Province of Orissa to the exclusion of all other persons in the routes and areas over which it extended its activities, and with that end in view, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were modified as therein specified.

Section 4 of the Act provided that the Provincial Government may, if they think fit, by notification direct that the powers conferred by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on a Provincial Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority shall

be held in abeyance with respect to the issue, renewal, t956 suspension or transfer of permits for stage carriage Ram Chandra services and public carrier's services. Such a notifica- Palai and others tion was to be effective according to the directions v. either in the whole of the Province or in any speci- The State o/Orissa fied area or in respect of any specified route or routes. and others - _...

On the issue of such a notification, the abovemen- Bhagwatt J. tioned powers conferred on the Provincial Transport -

- ..,

Authority or the Regional Transport Authority were to be held in abeyance and all permits issued, renewed or transferred by them were to become inoperative and the Provincial Government alone was to have the power to issue or renew permits or to grant temporary permits or to suspend or to transfer permits for stage carriage services and public carrier's services.

Whilst the State of Orissa was examining the question of the formation of such a Company, the merger of feudatory States of Orissa with the Province of Orissa took place on the lat January, 1948. Some of these Durbars had their own transport services and these were taken over by the State Government of Orissa. Orissa was then divided into 5 zones for the purpose of proper development of road transport, viz., Sambalpur, Keonjhar, Koraput, Ganjam and Cuttack zones. It was decided by the Government to nationalise passenger service transport in the first three zones to be run departmentally based on the nucleus services taken over from the feudatory States which had merged. In order to give effect to this decision, the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act I of 1949) was enacted which further amended the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in the manner therein specified. Section I (3) of that Act provided that the remaining provisions of the Act shall come into force in such specified areas of the district or districts as the Provincial Government may by notification from time to time appoint. The Provincial Government may also by notification with draw the remaining provisions of the Act from any specified areas. It was further provided that 011 and from the date when the remaining provisions of the Act came into force in any specified areas, the

1956 provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 shall be repealed in respect of the said specified areas and Rarn Chandra Palai and others when the remaining provisions of the Act were withv. drawn from any specified areas, the provisions of TheStateofOrissa Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 shall be deemed to be

and others revived in the said specified areas from the date of publication of the notification of withdrawal.

L .. :.: BhagwaliJ.

The effect of these provisions was that in those areas or districts where a notification under section 4(1) of the Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 was not issued, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, continued to apply; where such a notification was issued, the provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 came to • be applied except where, by virtue of the power reserved under section 1 of Orissa Act I of 1949, the remaining provisions of that Act were brought into force by a notification issued in that behalf, in which case the provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 were repealed in respect of the said specified areas and the provisions of Orissa Act I of 1949 became applicable. These were the three distinct sets of circumstances which would prevail at a given time after the enactment of Orissa Act I of 1949 according as the relevant notifications under section 4(1) ofOrissa Act XXXVI of 1947 or under section 1(4) of Orissa " Act I of 1949 were issued bringing particular area or areas within the operation of the said respective Acts.

Whereas a Joint-Stock Company in which the Central and the Provincial Governments were together to have controlling interests was envisaged in Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947, State Transport Service was envisaged in Orissa Act I of IU49 which defined State '"" Transport Service to mean . a service in which the Orissa State has entire or partial financial interest and which the Provincial Government may by notification declare to be a State Transport Service for the purposes of the Act. A Joint-Stock Company was accordingly formed in 1950 which was called the Orissa Road Transport Co., Ltd. The Transport Services which were run through the Joint-Stock Company were termed the "Rationalised Services". The

Services which were run through the State Transport 1956 Service were termed the "Nationalised Services".

Ram Chandra In pursuance of the above scheme of Nationalised Palai and others State Transport, the State Government of Orissa v. issued notifications and press notes which gave in- Th• state ofOrissa

timation to the owners of Stage Carrier Services opeand othero rating on the several routes within the districts of BhagwatiJ.

Orissa that with effect from the 1st January 1955 either the Orissa Road Transport Co., Ltd., or the State Transport Service will be operating the said respective routes. That was the occasion for the above petitions being filed by the owners of the Stage Carriage Services plying their buses on the said respectiv.e routes impugning Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and Orissa Act I of 1949 as unconstitutional and void as aforesaid.

 . The petitions before us are not confined to the areas and routes where only Rationalised Services or Nationalised Services are contemplated to be introduced by the State Government. Petitions Nos. 604

of 1954, 648 of 1954, 664 of 1954, 666 of 1954 and 671 of 1954 are concerned with the nationalisation of the services and the routes operated upon by the petitioners in those petitions are intended to be served by the State Transport Service. Petitions Nos. 605 of 1954, 647 of 1954, 649 of 1954, 663 of 1954 and 665 of 1954 are concerned with the rationalisation of the services and the routes opeated upon by the petitioners in those petitions are intended to be served by the Orissa Road Transport Co .. , Ltd. Petition No. 692 of 1954 is not clear whether the scheme to be put into operation by the State Government in the route operated upon by the petitioner therein is intended to be nationalised or rationalised. One thing, however, is common between all these petitioners that their permits under which they have been operating their buses upon those routes for the last several years are liable to be either terminated or cancelled or are not to be renewed under the scheme of Nationalised Road Transport Services and either the State Government or the Transport Authorities will grant the permits on those routes only to the Orissa Road

1956 Transport Co. Ltd., or the State Transport Service as the case may be.

Ram Chantlra f ed k d Palal and others The provisions o the impugn Acts were attac e v. on the ground thattherewasdiscriminationin.favour Th• Slat• o/ 0,1 .. a of the State Transport Service and the Orissa Road

and other• Transport Co. Ltd. It was urged that the State could - not discriminate against persons in its own favour as BhagwatiJ. well as in favour of the Joint-Stock Company formed for carrying on motor transport business as that would be a negation of equality guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. It was also urged that zonal and territorial discrimination in the application of the impugned Acts arbitrarily offended against article 14 of the Constitution. A further ground of attack was that the said provisions of the impugned Acts and the rules framed thereunder infringed article 19(l)(f) and (g) of the Constitution as they put restrictions on tile citizens regarding their rights to hold property and to practice trade or business. Article 31(2) was also alleged to have been infringed because the Gazette Notification of the State of Orissa purporting to take away the petitioners' motor transport business amounted to confiscation and the interests of the petitioners in a commercial undertaking " were purported to be acquired without making any provisions for compensation. The impugned Acts, it was alleged, also violated the guarantee of freedom of inter-State and intra-State trade embodied in article 301 of the Constitution.

Our attention was drawn to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and Orissa Act I of 1949 regarding the issue ~ and renewal of permits. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Provincial Transport Authority and the Regional Tran11port Authority were invested with the requisite powers in this behalf. Sections 47 and 55 prescribed the matters to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for stage carriage permits and public carrier's permits and section 58 provided for the duraion and renewal of permits. So far as renewals of permits were concerned, it was provided that, other conditions

being equal, applications for renewal shall be given 1956 preference over new applications for permits. When Ram Chandra a notification was issued under section 4(1) of Palai and others Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947, the powers conferred on v. the Provincial Transport Authority or the. Regional Th• State of Orissa Transport Authority by the Motor Vehicles Act, andothers 1939, were held in abeyance and the Provincial Government alone was invested with the power to issue Bhagwati J. or renew permits. In the granting or refusing to grant such permits, the Provincial Government was not bound to take into consideration the matters specified in sections 47 or 55 of the Mot.or Vehicles Act, 1939. The Provincial Government was also authorised by notification to cancel any permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, without following the provisions of section 60 of that Act.

The only provision which was made in section 6 of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 in this behalf was that when a permit became inoperative under section 4(2) or was cancelled under section 5 of that Act, compensation as therein prescribed was payable to such permit holder.

Sections 3 and 4 of Orissa Act I of 1949 added two further clauses to sections 47 and 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, viz.,

"(g) other conditions being equal, in the interest of proper co-ordination of transport facilities, the expediency of giving due consideration to a State Transport Service;

(h) the necessity for preventing unhealthy competition in any route or routes or area on which the State Transport Service may ply;"

It was pointed out that the whole scheme of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and Orissa Act I of 1949 was to oust the owners of stage carriage service from business and create a virtual monopoly in favour of the Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. or the State Transport Service and thus discriminate against persons in favour of the Joint-Stock Company or the State.

Even though the Provincial Government was invested with power to issue or renew the permits which would become inoperative, under section 4(2) (b) of Orissa

1956 Act XXXVI of 1947, that power woul<l be exercised only having regard to the obi"ect which the State Gov- Ram Chandra Palai and others ernment had in view in enacting that Act and the v. only result would be the issue of permits in favour of The State of Orissa the Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. The position

and others under Orissa Act I of 1949 would be no better in spite BhagwatiJ. of clauses (g) and (h) having been added to sections 47 and 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, because the expediency of giving due consideration to a State Transport Service and tbe necessity for preventing unhealthy competition therein mentioned would also have the effect of eliminating the private-owned stage carriage service altogether and replacing in its stead the State Transport Service.

It was also pointed out that the State Government had arbitrarily and without any rational basis selected certain districts like Gan-jam and Puri and parts of Cuttack District for starting the Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd., and had introduced Staie Transport Service in certain other districts such as Sambalpur,

Keonjhar, Bolangir and some parts of Cuttack District. Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 was applied to the former Districts while Orissa Act I of 1949 was applied to the latter Districts. The provisions of both the Acts being materially different as set out above the application nf one Act to particular districts of the State and of the other Act to the other districts of the State was violative of the guarantee of equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The owners of stage carriage services to whom Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 applied had the additional advantage of having compensation granted to them in accordance with the terms of section 6 thereof which advantage was not available to those owners of stage carriage services to whom Orissa Act I of 1949 was applied.

There was also a further advantage which was available to the persons to whom Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 applied and it was section 8 of the Act which provided that, when permits had been cancelled by the Provincial Government under the provisions of the Act, the Provincial Government may, by notification, require such

... -

permit holders or owners to sell any specified vehicle 1956 or vehicles and any other movable or immoveable Ram Chandra property used in connection with the operation and Palai 01, d others

maintenance of such vehicle or vehicles, to the Comv. pany, when so constituted, at the rates assessed in the The state o/Orissa prescribed manner. This advantage was not available and others to the persons to whom Orissa Act I of 1949 applied.

It has, however, to be remembered that the Scheme of Nationalised State Transport had its origin in the White Paper published by the Government of India towards the end of the year 1944 with a view to removing the difficulties coming in the way of proper development of road transport and the need for cheap, efficient and rapid road transport services and the elimination of wasteful competition had been emphasized therein. The matter was discussed at the meeting of the Transport Advisory Council held in 1945 and the Transport Advisory Council had then drafted a code of principles and practice for regulating the co-ordination of rail-road transport services which were later ratified by the State Government and accepted by the Government of India.

It was this scheme which was embarked upon by the State of Orissa and several steps were taken by the State

Government in order to implement that scheme. The first step towards such implementation was the enactment of Orissa Act XX XVI of 1947 which envisaged the formation of a Joint-Stock Company in which the Central and the Provincial Governments shall together have controlling interests.

Before such a Company could be formed the feudatory States in Orissa had merged in the Province on the 1st January 1948 and the State Government had on its hand transport services which were owned by such States and had been taken over by the State Government of Orissa. These transport services formed the nucleus on the basis of which the State Government thought of adopting another mode of implementing the scheme of Nationalised State Transport and Orissa Act I of 1949 was passed envisaging the State Transport Service which would also serve the same purpose. When these two modes of implementation, viz., the formation of a

Bhagu-ati J.

1956 Joint-Stock Company and the starting of the State Ram Chandra Transport Service, were adopted by the State Gov- Palai anti others ernment, the question naturally arose as to how these

T, two different ideas could be worked out for the fulfil- The.SM• of Orissa ment of the end in view.

The nucleus of transport and others services which had been owned by the State Government had to be utilised so far as it was available and Bhagwati}, h . avmg regard to the situation as it obtained, the State Government naturally thought of applying Orissa Act I of 1949 to certain districts of the State leaving the other districts to be served by the mode envisaged in Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947.

Such a zonal or territorial or geographical division of the several districts of the State for implementation of the scheme of Nationalised State Transport by either the formation of a Joint-Stock Company or the running of the State Transport Service was based on the availability of the transport services acquired by the State Government from the various merging States and if such a division was made having regard to the situation as it thus obtained, no challenge could be made against it on the ground of discriminatfon or the denial of equal protection of laws.

What wasessential was that, as between the owners of stage carriage services operating on a particular route or in a particular area, no discrimination should be made and all should be treated alike. "If each one of such owners had the same Act applied to them they could not be heard to complain about any discrimination. They formed a separate group or class by themselves to be treated in a particular manner having regard to the exigencies of the situation and the Government was the best judge of the circumstances which obtained within the particular locality which necessitated the application of one Act or the other for the implementation of the scheme. If the State Transport Services were not sufficient in number and could not fully serve the purpose sought to be achieved, the State Government would well be within its rights to form a Joint-Stock Company as envisaged in Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 a, nd if such a Joint-

Stock Company could not be formed within a

measurable distance of time, the State Government 1966 could very well allow the old order of things to continue Ram Chandra under which the owners of stage carriage services Palai and others would be governed only by the provisions of the v.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It all depended upon the The State of Orissa administrative convenience as to whether the State and others Government could adopt one mode of implementation BlragwatiJ. of the scheme or the other and no blame could be laid at its door if, in the circumstances of this case, it adopted one mode of implementation in one district or part of a district and adopted another mode of implementation in another district or another part of a district provided, however, as we have stated above, all persons who were operating on a particular route or routes or were located in a particular area or district were treated equally and without any discrimination inter se.

Such zonal or territorial or geographical division, therefore, would not be violative of the equal protection of laws.

A further argument which was addressed before us on behalf of the petitioners may be noted here and it was thatOrissa Act I of 1949 had been applied to some of them and that Act provided for no compensation to be given to them as in the case of those owners of stage carriage services to whom Orissa Act XX XVI of 1947 had been applied. That, it was contended, was discriminatory as between the several owners of stage carriage services and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution. This argument, however, ignores the fact that under Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947, the permits issued or renewed in favour of the owners of stage carriage services by the Provincial Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority cease t'o be operative or are cancelled by the Provincial Government as the case may be and compensation is given to such permit holders for such premature termination or cancellation of their permits. The owners of stage carriage services to whom Orissa Act I of 1949 is applied stand, however, on a different footing.

Their permits continue for the normal period and the considerations which are laid down in clauses (f) and

(g) which have been thereby added to sections 47 and 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would come into

1956 play when these permits which have expired by lapse of time come to be considered for renewal on applica- Rani Chandra Palai and others tions made by permit holders in that behalf. These v. permits may or may not be renewed in favour of these The State of Orissa permit holders but the non-renewal of such permits and others would not be on a par with the premature termination or cancellation of the permits held by the owners Bhagwati J. f • h h o stage carnage services to w om t e provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 were applied. The two positions, therefore, are not similar and the permit holders under Orissa Act I of 1949 do not fall in the same class or group as the permit holders under Orissa

Act XXXVI of 1947.

There is no question, therefore, of any discrimination between these two classes or groups of permit holders and it cannot be validly urged that the provisions of the impugned Acts in so far as they applied to different classes or groups of permit holders are in any manner violative of the fundamental right embodied in article 14 of the Constitution.

The argument that the provisions of the impugned Acts were designed with a view to oust the private stage carriage services from business altogether and were intended to create a virtual monopoly in favour of the Joint-Stock Company or the State as the case may be is also now of no avail. Saghir Ahmad's case(1) was particularly relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contentions but article 19(6) of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, enacts that "Nothing in sub-clause (g) shall affect the opera ti on of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause,. and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause, shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,-

(i) .......................... .

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade,

(1) [1956] 1 S.C.R. 707.

business, industry or service, whethe1 to the exclu- 1956 sion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise".

Ram Chandra This amendment excludes all argument in regard to Palai and others the alleged ousting of the private-owned stage carriv. age services and the creation of a virtual monopoly in The State of Orissa favour of the Joint-Stock Company or the State. The andothers Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. which is a Joint-Stock BhagwatiJ.

Company formed under the provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and the State Transport Services which are envisaged in Orissa Act I of 1949 would, therefore, be able to carry on their business even if it resulted in the complete elimination of the privateowned stage carriage services without any violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) ofthe Constitution.

It was attempted to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment of article 19(6) of the Constitution would not affect the position as it obtained under t.he impugned Acts because these Acts had been long in operation before the amendment came into force and the petitioners were entitled to relief based on our decision in Saghir Ahmad's case, supra. A similar argument was sought to be advanced before us in Petitions Nos. 189 to 193 of 1955 -Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another(1)-and that argument was repelled by us in the manner following:

"The contention of the respondents before us is that although the amending Act, on the authority of our decision in Saghir Ahmad's case (supra), became on and from the 26th January 1950 void as against the citizens to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of article 19(1)(g), nevertheless, after the 18th June 1951 when clause (6) was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 the amending Act ceased to be inconsistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19(1)(g) read with the amended clause (6) of that article, because that clause, as it now stands, permits the creation by law of State monopoly in respect, inter alia~ of motor transport business and it became operative again

(1) (1955) 2 S.C.R. 589.

1956 even as against the citizens ................ In our judgment the contentions put forward by the respondents as Ram Chandr'a Palai and others to the effect of the Constitution (First Amendment) v.

Act, 1951 are well-founded and the objections urged The State o/Orissa against them by the petitioners are untenable and a .. d others must be negatived".

It is hardly necessary for us to consider the further ·"- - BhagwatiJ, d b h h h content10n urge y t e petitioners, viz., t at t e fundamental right guaranteed under article l9(l)(f) and under article 31 (2) had been violated.

If the permits held by them under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were prematurely terminated or cancelled under the provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 compensation was provided by the Act itself.

If there was no renewal of their permits on the expiration thereof after they had run for their normal period by virtue of the provisions of Orissa Act I of 1949, no claim could be made by them on the score of such non-renewal because renewal was not a matter of right. The Provincial Transport Authority or the Regional Transport. Authority would be well within their rights to refuse such renewal having regard to the provisions of the amended sections 47 and 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and, if at all there was any deprivation of their proprietary rights, it would be by authority of law.

Nor need we pause to consider the last contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned Acts violated the guarantee of freedom of inter-State and intra-State trade or business embodied in article 301 of the Constitution. In the first instance, it is not a fundamental right conferred by Part III of the Constitution which can be enforced by a petition .. under article 32.

Moreover, article 305 as it stood before tbe amendment and the amended article 305 which came into effect after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, afford a complete answer to this contention of the petitioners.

The result, therefore, is that there is no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and the petitions must, therefore, stand dismissed as ordered by us already.

Court.

RAM CHANDRA PALA! AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

S. R. DAS

BHAGWATI

B. P. SINHA

JAFER IMAM JJ.

Constitution of India

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

s. 4

Orissa Act I of 1949

s. 1

Motor Vehicles Act

Orissa

Orissa Act I of 1949

Motor Vehicles Act

1st ol January, 1955

Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd.

Art. 14

Art. 31(2)

Art. 301

Palai

Art. 19(1)(f)

Art.

19

(1955] 1 S.C.R. 707

Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(2)

Art. 301

Art. 32

Art. 305

Article 32

Constitution of India

Ram Ch"nd,.a

S. P. Sinha

R. Patnaik

A. Mehta

P.G. Gokhale

article 32

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

State of Orissa

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Section 4

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Bhagwatt

and others - _...

On the issue of such a notification, the abovemen- Bhagwatt J. tioned powers conferred on the Provincial Transport -
..,

Authority or the Regional Transport Authority were to be held in abeyance and all permits issued, renewed or transferred by them were to become inoperative and the Provincial Government alone was to have the power to issue or renew permits or to grant temporary permits or to suspend or to transfer permits for stage carriage services and public carrier's services.

Sambalpur

Keonjhar

Koraput

Ganjam

Orissa Act I of 1949

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

TheStateofOrissa Orissa Act

BhagwaliJ.

section 4(1)

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

section 1

Orissa Act I of 1949

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

section 4(1)

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

section 1(4)

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Road Transport Co., Ltd.

Ram Chandra

State Government of Orissa

BhagwatiJ.

Orissa

1st January 1955

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

Orissa Road Transport Co .. , Ltd.

article 14

article 14

article 19(l)(f)

Article 31(2)

article 301

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Sections 47 and 55

section 58

section 4(1)

Palai and others Orissa Act

Bhagwati

sections 47

Vehicles Act, 1939

Motor Vehicles Act

section 60

section 6

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

section 4(2)

section 5

Sections 3 and 4

Orissa Act I of 1949

sections 47 and 55

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

section 4(2)

Ram Chandra Palai

Orissa Act I of 1949

BhagwatiJ.

sections 47 and 55

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Cuttack District

Bolangir

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Districts while Orissa Act

Article 14

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

section 6

Orissa Act I of 1949

section 8

Orissa Act I of 1949

Government of India

1st January 1948

Orissa Act I of 1949

State Ram Chandra Transport Service

State Gov- Palai

Orissa Act I of 1949

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Palai

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Orissa Act I of 1949

Article 14

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

sections 47 and 55

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Rani Chandra Palai

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

Act XXXVI of 1947

article 14

Saghir Ahmad

article 19(6)

[1956] 1 S.C.R. 707

Palai

Orissa Act I of 1949

article 19(1)(g)

article 19(6)

article 19(1)(g)

article 19(1)(g)

(1955) 2 S.C.R. 589

Ram Chandr'a Palai

BhagwatiJ

article 31

Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947

Orissa Act I of 1949

sections 47 and 55

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

article 301

article 32

article 305

article 305


S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 303

RAJA BHAIREBENDRA NARAYAN BHUP

THE STATE OF ASSAM (with connected appeal)

[S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.]

Zamindaries, Acquisition of-Bill passed by the Provincial Legislative Assembly reserved by the Governor for consideration of the Governor General-Returned by the Governor General sil{lgesting reservation for the President--'Promiilgation of the Oonstitution- Effect-Oompetency of the Governor to reserve-State Legislative Assembly, if could continue the Bill-Constitutional validity of the Act-Provisions, if discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights-Assam State Acqitisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 (Assam Act XVIII of 1951) as amended by Assam Act VI of 1954-0onsti tution of India, Arts. 389, 395, 31( A), 31(2), 14-Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo.~· Oh. 2), ss. '15, '16.

The appellants by two suits, which were heard by 11 Full Bench of the Assam High Court, challenged the Constitutional validity of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 as amended by the Assam Act VI of 1954. The Assam Legislative Assembly had passed the Bill on March 28, 1949. It was presented to the Governor and reserved by him for the consideration of the Governor General who, in view of the impending constitutional changes, on January 25, 1950, returned the Bill to the Governor suggesting that it might be reserved for the consideration of the President. While the Bill was in transit and before it actually reached the Governor, the Constitution came into force.

The Governor reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President and sent it to him. The President returned the Bill suggesting ce1tain alterations. The State Legislative Assembly considered them and passed the Bill suitably amended. It received the President's assent on July 27, 1951, and became an Act. On September 11, 1951, the State Legislative

Assembly passed an amending Bill which was assented to by the President. The Act as amended was brought into force on April 15, 1954, and a Notification was issued by the State Government under the impugned Act declaring that the properties of the appellants, along with those of others, would vest in the State.

It was con tended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned Act was not within the competence of the Sta.ts Legislature, it was not enacted according to law and infringed the fundamental rights of the appel !ants under Arts. 31(2) and 14 of the Constitution. Tbe High Court repelled these contentions and they were reiterated in appeal.

Held, that the impugned Act was passed according to law, its

April 11

1956 provisions were constitutionally valid and the decision of the High Court must be affirmed.

Raja Bha, rebendra , Narayan BhuP That the repeal of the Government of Indrn Act, 1935, by Art. v 395 of the Constitution could not wipe out the Bill as it was, im The State~! Assam mediately before the commencement of the Constitution, pending before the Governor General and/or the Governor who represented His Majesty the King who was a part of the Provincial Legislature and was, therefore, pending before the Provincial Legislature and, consequently, the State Legislature of Assam was competent under Art. 389 to continue the same.

That although the Governor General might not have acted constitutionally under s. 76 of the Government of India Act, 1935, in suggesting that the Bill might be reserved for the President's consideration, his action, in the absence of a positive declaration to that effect, could not amount to a withholding of assent under that section and effect a. termination of the bill, contrary to his express intention indicated by the suggestion itself that it should remain pending.

That under the Government of India Act, 1935, His Majesty the King was an integral part of the Legislature and when the Bill was presented to the Governor or the Governor Genernl u.nder s. 75 or s. 76 of the Act, in due couree of legislation, and neither of them gave or withheld assent in the name of His Majesty, it remained pending, both in law and reality, before his Majesty and, therefore, before the Legislature and could properly be continued by the State Legislature after the commencement of the Constitution. The Gov emor was, therefore, within his powers in reserving it for the President and the subsequent enactment of the Bill was in accordance with the Constitution.

That the word

1Legislature' is not used in the same sense in different articles of the Constitution, or even in different parts of the same article, and its exact meaning has to be ascertained with reference to the subject-matter on the context and in Art. 389 it is used in the larger sense so a.a to comprise the entire legislative machinery including His Majesty represented by the Governor General or the Governor and does not mean merely the Legislative Chamber or Chambers. The Constitution intended to keep alive not merely Bills which were actually pending before the Legislative Chamber but also Bills, such as the present, that had reached the final stages of the.legislative process and were awaiting assent of the Governor General or the Governor representing His Majesty.

Visweshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952) S.C.R. 1020, referred to.

That the impugned Act was a law providing for the acquis; tion of estates by the State within the meaning of Art. 31-A of the Con stitution and was, as such, fully protected by it, and its validity could not be questioned on the ground of any contravention of any

of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fun de.mental rights. ·

Raja BhairebendM That the Act could not, in the absence of any question as to Narayan B/1up legislative incompetency, be.impugned as a colourable exercise of v. legislative power on account of the provisions it made for payment The State of Assam of compensation and any question relating to the quantum of com pensation would be barred under Art. 3lA of the Constitution.

0. Gajapati Narain Deb v. State of Orissa, ([1954) S.C.R. 1), referred to.

That Art. 14 of the Constitution could not really help the ap pellants, it being no longer open to them to contend, in view of the decisions of this Court, that the State could pick and choose and thus discriminate between one estate a.nd another.

Biswambhar Si'flgh v. The State of Orissa, ([1954] S.C.R. 842) and Thakur Amar Singh v. Tlte State of Rajasthan, ([1955) 2 S.C.R. 303), referred to.

That, in view of the decisions of this Court, the Act could not be ea.id to discriminate by reason of its application being limited to such Lakheraj estates alone as fell within the boundaries of per manently settled estates and not extending to other Lakheraj estates as the former constituted a distinct class by themselves and acqui sition of them facilitated the object of the Act. Nor could the pro vision for different scales of compensation prescribed for different estates amount to discrimination as there is a. rational basis for such classification of proprietors of different income groups.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 310 and 3ll of 1955.

Appeals under Article 132 of the Constitution from the judgment and order dated the 6th April, 1955 of the Assam High Court in Title Suits Nos. I & 3 of 1955.

N. 0. Ohatterji, P. N. Mitter, D. N. Mukerji and R. R. Biswas, for the appellant in C. A. No. 310 of 1955.

P. K. Ohatterji, for the appellant in C. A. No. 311 of 1955.

M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General/or India, S. M.

Lahiri, Advocate-General of Assam and Naunit Lal, for the respondent in both appeals.

Raja Bhairebendra

1956. April 11. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Narayan Bl•uP DAS C. J.-It is intended by this judgment to dis- •· pose of both the appeals mentioned above.

The ap- The State of Assam peals have come up before us in circumstances which may shortly be recounted.

On 6th December 1954 the appellant Raja Bhairabendra Narain Bhup of Bijni filed T. S. No. 27 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act XVIII of 1951) as amended by Assam Act VI of 1954 was not validly p1tssed, was not law at all and was unconstitutional, ultra vires and void and for a declaration that the impugned Act was, at any rate, inapplicable to the plaintiff's properties and the Notification purporting to be issued under section 3(1) of the impugned Act in respect of the plaintiff's properties was illegal, ultra vires and void.

On the 23rd December, 1954 the appellant Sm.

Bedabala Debi wife of Sri Nripendra Narain

Choudhuy as the Trustee of Chapor Tmst estate filed T. S. No. 34 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri challenging the constitutionality of the same Act. In this suit there was no contention, as there was in the Raja's suit, that the Act, if valid, did not apply to the estate of which she was the Trustee.

By two several orders made under article 228 by the Assam High Court on the 21st January 1955 and the 16th February 1955 respectively the said two suits were transferred to the High Court and renumbered as T. S. No. l of 1955 and.T. S. No. 3 of 1955 respectively.

The State of Assam duly filed its written statements in both the suits controverting the contentions set forth in the respective plaints.

The High Court framed II issues in the Raja's T.S.

No. I of 1955. The issues common to the two suits were as follows:- ( I) Whether the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act XVIH of 1951) and its

amendments are within the competence of the State 1956 Legislature and whether they were enacted according R . Bh-:- b a ? a1a a•re e11 ra ~~. ~~~

(2) Whether the Notification No. Rt./24/54/21 v. dated 19th July 1954 published in the Assam Gazette The State of Assam dated 21st July 1954 and issued under the Act aforesaid is valid?

Das C.J.

(3) Whether the said Act and its amendments infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under article 31 (2) and article 14 of the Constitution; or whether the legislation is protected under article 31-A and article 31(4) of the Constitution?

(4) Whether the provisions of the Act and its amendments can be enforced against the properties in suit, even if the legislation is•held to be valid?

(5) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

The parties through their respective counsel agreed that the issues of law which did not depend upon adjudication of disputed facts should be heard and decided first, leaving the other issues, if necessary, to be dealt with later.

The two cases were heard by a Full Bench of the Assam High Court. The learned Judges answered issues 1 and 3 against the plaintiffs, although not for identical reasons. They also answered issue 2 against the plaintiffs, subject, as to the Raja, the plaintiff in T.S. No. 1 of 1955, to the answer to issue 4. On the last mentioned issue the Bench held that the Act and the Notification being valid they could be enforced against Sm. Bedabala, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 3 of

1955. As regards the Raja, the plaintiff in T.S. No. 1 of 1955, the Bench held that as the question whether the properties of the Raja sought to have been notified were "estate" within the meaning of the impugned Act was one of fact, issue 4 could only be decided, as between the Raja and the defendant State, upon evidence led in the case. In the result the Bench dismissed Sm. Bedabala's T.S. No. 3 of 1955 with costs and directed the records of the Raja's T.S. No. 1 of 1955 to be sent down to the court below for trial and disposal on the determination of issue 4 and other issues. In view of the importance of the ques-

1956 tion involved in the issues dealt with by the Bench

R . 8 .-;-: •-a they gave leave under article 132 to the plaintiffs in a1a nairevc; n ra b th h • 1 h • C H Narayan Bhup o t e smts to appea to t 1s ourt. ence the v. present appeals.

The State of Assam At the hearing before us arguments have proceeded on issues 1, 2 and 3. It will be convenient, therefore, Das C.J. to deal with the issues seriatim.

Re issue-1: Issue 1, it will be observed, has two parts.

The first relates to the competence of the State Legislature in enacting the impugned law and the second part relates to the question whether the impugned Act was enacted according to law.

As a greater emphasis has been laid by learned counsel appearing in support of the appeals on the second part of this issue, we take up and deal with that part first.

The facts bearing on this part of the issue may now be summarised.

On the 11th August 1948 a Bill called Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill was published in the Assam Gazette.

On the 23rd September 1948 the Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Assam, which was its only Legislative Chamber. The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 28th March 1949.

The Governor of Assam, acting under section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935, reserved the Bill for the consideration of the Governor-General.

In view of the then impending commencement of the Constitution, the Governor-General on the 25th January 1950 returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam with the remark that the Bill be reserved for the consideration of the President.

On the 26th of January 1950 the Constitution of India came into force.

Two days later, that is to say, on the 28th January 1950, the Governor of Assam actually received back the Bill.

The Governor of Assam then reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President and sent the Bill to the President.

In October 1950 the President returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam suggesting certain alterations. The Bill, together with the suggested amendments, was placed before the Legislative Assembly of Assam. The Legislative Assembly

considered the suggested alterations and passed the 1956 Bill suitably amended. The amended Bill thereupon - was again forwarded to the President and on the 27th Ra Bhair~n; ra July 1951 it received the assent of the President and ara:v;~ " became Assam Act XVIII of 1951. The Act was The State of Assam

published in the Assam Gazette of the 8th August

1951. On the 11th September 1951 the Legislative Das C.J.

Assembly passed a Bill amending Assam Act XVIII of 1951 in certain particulars and this Bill, having been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President, received the assent of the President on the 25th March 1954 and became Assam Act VI of

1954. The Acts were brought into force on the 15th April 1954 by a Notification issued by the .Assam Government on the 9th June 1954. On the 19th July 1954 a. Notification was published in the Assam Gazette under section 3(1) of the impugned Act declaring that the properties therein mentioned, including the properties which formed the subjectmatter of the two suits would vest in the State free from all encumbrances with effect from the 15th April 1955. Two suits out of which the present appeals arise were then filed in December 1954.

The second part of issue 1 raises the contention that the impugned Act was not enacted according to law. The following reasons have been urged in support of this contention.

(a) The Bill was introduced in the Assembly without the sanction of the Governor which was required by section 299(3) of the Government of India Act.

(b) When the Bill was placed before the Governor-General for his assent and he did not assent to it, the assent must be deemed to have been withheld. His suggestion that it be reserved for the consideration of the President was void and of no effect.

(c) The Bill was not pending in the Legislature at the date of the commencement of the Constitution and it could not be reserved for the assent of the President.

(d) The Legislature functioning under the Constitution has no power to consider the amendment~

1956 suggested by the President or to pass the same. . -.

(e) The Bill having been passed by the Legisla- Ra1a Bhairebendra A bl d th ft h b d Narayan Bhup t1ve ssem . y an. erea er avmg een reserve v. for the consideration of the Governor-General under Tlw State of Assam the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Governor- General not having taken any constitutional action Das C.J. in respect of it, as prescribed by that Act up to the time that Act was operating, the Bill lapsed on the repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935 and the promulgation of the Constitution.

(f) The subsequent acts of the Governor, the Legislative Assembly and the purported assent of the President are all unconstitutional and void.

The reason under heading (a) above may be disposed of in a few words. The impugned .Act undoubtedly provides for the compulsory acquisition of land and had, therefore, to comply with the requirements of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was in force at the date of the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Assembly of the province of Assam. Sub-section (3) of that section provided that no Bill making provision for the transference to public ownership of any land should be introduced in either Chamber of Federal Legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion or in a Chamber of Provincial Legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor in his discretion. It was alleged that the previous sanction of the Governor of Assam had not been obtained before the Bill, which eventually became the impugned Act, was introduced in the Legislative Assembly.

This allegation was controverted and the learned Advocate-General of Assam produced before the High Court the minutes of the official proceedings in relation to the Bill.

The Revenue Department's file No. RT 17/48dated the 21st July 1948 shows that a note was put up before "H.E.", meaning obviously His Excellency the Governor, seeking, amongst other things, his sanction for the introduction of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill, 1948 under section 299(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. At the foot of that note appear the

initials "A.H." over the date 21st July, 1948. It is 1956 not disputed that the initials "A.H." stand for Akbar R . - H . h h G f A

I a1a Bhairebendra ydari, who was t en t e overnor o ssam. t IS Narayan BhuJ> true that the words "sanction granted" were not v. endorsed on the note but there can be no doubt that The State of Assam the initials were appended to the note by the Governor for no other purpose than for signifying his sanction to the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Assembly. Moreover under section 109 of that Act, if there were no other defect vitiating it, the impugned Act could not be challenged as invalid by reason only that previous sanction was not given by the Governor to the introduction of the Bill. In our judgment the first reason urged in support of the contention that the impugned Act was not enacted according to law has no force and must be rejected.

The reasons (b) to (f) may conveniently be dealt with together. It will be recalled that after the Bill had been passed by the Assam Legislative Assembly on the 28th March, 1949, it was presented to the Governor under section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Under that Act the Governor could do one of four things. He could in his discretion declare that he assented in His Majesty's name to the Bill or that he withheld assent therefrom or that he reserved the Bill for the consideration of the Governor-General or he could in his discretion return the Bill together with a message requesting the Chamber or Chamhers to reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof. In this case the Governor in his discretion reserved the Bill for the consideration of the Governor-

General and forwarded the Bill to him.

Under section 76 of that Act the Governor-General could do one of four things, namely, that he could in his discretion declare that he assented in His Majesty's name to the Bill or that he withheld assent therefrom or that he reserved the Bill for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure thereon or he could, if in his discretion he thought fit, direct the Governor to return the Bill to the Cham her or Chambers of the Provincial Legislature together with such a message as was mentioned in the preceding section. What happened in

Das C.J.

19s6 this case is that, in view of the impending constitu-

R . 8 -. b. tional changes, the Governor-General, on the 25th a7a haire endra J 1950 d h B' h G f Narayan Bhup anuary , returne t e ill to t e overnor o v.

Assam advising him to reserve the Bill for the con- Tiie State of Assam sideration of the President. While the Bill was in transit and before it was actually received by the Das C.J.

Governor, which he did on the 28th January 1950, our Constitution came into force on the 26th January 1950.

Our attention is drawn to article 395 of the Constitution, whereby the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935 together with all enactments, amending or supplementing the latter Act but not including the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949, were repealed.

It is pointed out that there was no saving provision in that article and consequently it was a total repeal of the enactments referred to therein.

Reference is made to the well-known observations of Tindal, C. J. in Kay v.

Godwin(') and the dictum of Lord Tenterden, C. J. in Surtees v. Ellison(9) and to Craies' Statute Law, 4th Edition, pp. 347 to 348 and Crawford on Statutory Construction, pp. 599 to 600, all referred to by Faz!

Ali, J. in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of

Bombay(') and it is contended that the effect of the repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935 was to obliterate that Act as completely as if it had never been passed and as if it had never existed except for the purpose of those actions commenced, prosecuted and concluded whilstit was an existing law. The Bill in question not having become an Act before the 26th January 1950 the same, it is urged, must be regarded as having been wiped out of existence by reason of the repeal.

There might have been a good deal of force in this con ten ti on had there been no other provision in the Constitution keeping this Bill alive.

Article 389 of the Constitution provides that a Bill which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution was pending in the Legislature of the

(ll (1830) 180 E.R. 1403; 6 Bing. 576.

(2) (1829) 9 B. & 0. 750, 762; 109 E.R. 278, 279.

(8) [196\) S.O.R. 228, 237 et seq,

Dominion of India or in the Legislature of any Pro- 1956 vince or Indian State may, subject to any provisions R 1 Bh-. b d h h• h b . l d d . l d a a a•re en ra to t e contrary w ic may e me u e m ru es ma e Narayan BhuJ> by Parliament or the Legislature of the correspondv. ing State under this Constitution, be continued in The State of Assam Parliament or the Legislature of the corresponding - State, as the case may be, as if the proceedings taken Das C.J. with reference to the Bill in the Legislature of the Dominion of India or in the Legislature of the Province or Indian State had been taken in Parliament or in the Legislature of the corresponding State. If, therefore, the Bill with which we are concerned was pending in the Legislature of Assam immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, then clearly it was quite properly continued in the Legislature of the corresponding State.

Two questions, therefore, arise, namely ( 1) whether at the commencement of the Constitution the Bill was pending at all and (2)· if it was, whether it was pending in the Legislature of Assam.

As to (1):-Section 30 of the Government of India Act, 1935 made provision for the introduction of Bills in the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and section 73 provided for the introduction of Bills in the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislature. Section 32 of the Act laid down provisions for presentation of the Bill passed by the Federal Legislative Chambers to the Governor-General and section 75 for the presentation of the Bill passed by the Provincial Legislative Chamber or Chambers to the Governor. Broadly speaking it may be said that a Bill begins to pend with its introduction in the Legislative Chamber and it ceases to pend-(a) when it lapses under section 73(4) or (b) when the Governor declares that he assents in his Majesty's name to the Bill in which case the Bill ripens into an Act or ( c) when the Governor declares that he withholds his assent therefrom, in which case the Bill falls through or (d) when being reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the Governor-General, the Governor- General acting under section 76 declares that he assents in HisMajesty's name to the Bill, in which case also

1956 the Bill becomes an Act or (e) when, having been so

R . 8~ b reserved by the Governor, the Governor-General dei:'aray::s~:~· clares that he withholds his assent therefrom, in which v. case again the Bill falls through or (f) when the Bill :rh• State of Assam having been reserved by the Governor-General for

Das C.J. the signification of His Majesty's pleasure thereon under section 76(1), tbe Governor under section 76(2) makes known by public notification that His Majesty had assented thereto, in which case again the Bill becomes an Act and lastly (g) when no such notification is issued by the Governor within twelve months from the date on which it was presented to the Governor, in which event also the Bill comes to an end.

In short a Bill may be said to be pending as long as it does not lapse or it does not become an Act by receiving the assent by the appropriate authority or is not terminated by the withholding of assent by such appropriate authority. The contention of the appellant is that when the Bill under consideration had been, under section 76, reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the Governor-General and sent to the Governor-General and the latter did not declare his assent in the name of His Majesty to the Bill but sent it back to the Governor, the Governor-General must be deemed to have withheld his assent from the Bill. As already stated, under section 76, the Governor-General could have declared that he assented in the name of His Majesty to the Bill or that he withheld his assent therefrom, or that he reserved the Bill for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or he could have returned it to the Governor for being presented to the Chamber for reconsideration but he could not do anything else. Therefore, his act of returning the Bill to the Governor with the suggestion to place it before the President was, it is urged, wholly unauthorised and amounted to his withholding his assent from the Bill.

We are unable to accept this argument a.ssound. The Governor-General knew that if he declared that he withheld his assent then the Bill would come to a termination and no further step could be taken in relation to that Bill. Therefore, when the Governor-

General returned the Bill to the Governor with the 1956 suggestion that the same Bill be reserved for the con- R . Bh-:- b d 'd t' f th p 'd t th G G l a1a aire en ra s1 era 10n o e res1 en , e overnorenera Narayan BhuJ> quite clearly evinced an intention that the Bill should v. remain alive, for otherwise there could be no question The State of Assam of further reservation of the same Bill for the consideration of the President.

The very suggestion of the further reservation of the Bill for the consideration of the President makes it impossible for us to hold, inferentially or fictionally, as we are asked to do, that the Governor-General had withheld his assent. It is clear on the facts that the Governor- General neither assented to, nor withheld his assent from, the Bill. His action may have been unconstitutional, but it cannot be regarded as amounting to a declaration that he was withholding his assent from the Bill, for the assenting to, or the withholding of assent from a Bill postulates a conscious and positive declaration that the assent is so given or withheld.

The suggestion that the Bill be reserved for the consideration of the President clearly militates against the view that the Governor-General had, positively or even tacitly, withheld his assent from the Bill. The very suggestion indicates that the Governor-General intended that the Bill should remain pending so that it could be reserved for the consideration of the President and receive his assent or dissent. In the premises it cannot be held that the Bill ceased to be pending by reason of the assent of the Governor- General having been withheld from it.

In our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Bill was pending at the date when our Constitution came into force.

As to (2):-Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that even if the Bill was pending, it was certainly not pending before the Legislature of Assam.

What, then, was the Legislature of the Province of Assam immediately before the commencement of our Constitution? This involves a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Government of India Act, 1935 was a statute passed by the British Parliament. The

Das C.J.

1956 Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

R . 8 -:- b and Northern Ireland consists of the Sovereign and a1a ha.re endra h h E f h R 1 1 h L Narayan Bhup t e t ree states o t e ea m, name y, t e ords v.

Spiritual and the Lords Temporal, who sit together The State of Assam iI1 the House of Lords and the elected representatives of the people, who sit in the House of Commons.

Das C.J.

When a Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament or is passed by the House of Commons in the manner provided by Parliament Act, 1911, it becomes ready to receive the Royal assent. No Bill passed by both Houses of Parliam&nt or in the last mentioned case by the House of Commons can become law and be entered in the Statute Book without the Royal assent.

It is thus clear that, according to British Constitutional theory, the Sovereign is an integral part of Parliament. This notion is reflected in sections 17, 55 and 56 of the British North America Act, with regard to the Canadian Parliament and sections 69, 71 and 90 of the same Act with regard to the Provincial Legislatures of that Dominion. The same idea was adopted in the Government of India Act, 1935.

Section 18 of this Act, as it originally stood, provided for a Federal Legislature consisting of His Majesty represented by the Governor-General and two Chambers to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of Assembly. Section 60 provided for a Legislature for every Province consisting of His Majesty represented by the Governor and in certain Provinces two Chambers and in other Provinces one Chamber. As already stated the Province of Assam had only one Chamber, the Legislative Assembly. The legislative procedure of the Chambers of the Federal Legislature was regulated by section 30 and of the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures by section 73 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Procedure subsequent to the passing of the Bill by the Legislative Chamber or Chambers was governed by section 32 with regard to Bills passed by the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and by sections 75 and 76 with regard to those passed by the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures.

It is true that section 18 of the Government of

India Act, 1935 was adapted. as contemplated by 1956 section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, but . 8 -. h d . f . 60 f h G Ra1a ha•rebendra t ere was no a aptat10n o sect10n o t e overn- Narayan Bhup ment of India Act, 1935 which dealt with the v.

Provincial Legislature. From the language used in The State of Assam section 18, as it stood before its adaptation and in section 60, it is quite clear that it was His Majesty himself, who was really a constituent part of the Legislatures, Federal and Provincial, and that he was represented by the Governor-General in relation to the Federal Legislature and by the Governor in the case of the Provincial Legislatures. His Majesty being, thus, an integral part of the Legislature, Federal and Provincial, when a Bill passed by the Chambers of the Federal Legislature or by the Chamber or Chambers of Provincial Legislatures, was presented to the Governor-General or the Governor under section 32 or sections 75 and 76 of that Act, the Legislative process went on and unless and until assent was given or withheld by the Governor-General or the Governor in the name of His Majesty there could be no escape from the position that in law and in reality the Bill was pending before His Majesty, for the Governor-General or the Governor was, under that Act, merely the agent representing His Majesty, who was an integral part of the Legislature. This was made clear by the provision that when the Gevernor-General or the Governor declared that he assented or that he withheld his assent, such declaration had to be made in the name of His Majesty.

Therefore, whether the Bill was in the hands of the Governor or in the hands of the Governor-General or was in transit between the one and the other on either way, it must be taken to have been pending before His Majesty and, therefore, before the Legislature.

The declaration giving or withholding assent was undoubtedly a continuation of the legislative process and until such declaration was made by the appropriate agency in the name of His Majesty obviously the Bill was pending and where, in law and in reality, could it at that stage be pending except before His Majesty as an integral part of the Legislature? Such

Das C.J.

1956 being the position under article 389 read with the re-

R . -. b levant provisions of the Government of India Act, a1aBhaore endra h d •t th" B"Jj Jd J b Narayan Bhup as we appre en

I , IS 1 cou proper y e conv. tinuedin the Legislature of Assam after the commence- Th• State of Assam ment of our Constitution.

Under article 168 of

Das C.J. our Constitution every State has a Legislature consisting of the Governor and in certain States two Houses and in other States, which include Assam, one House. The Bill having been passed by the Legislative Assembly of Assam before the commencement of the Constitution, all that was required to be done under the Constitution was to continue the legislative process-under article 200. It was, therefore, competent for the Governor of Assam to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President and it was in order for the President, under article 201, to direct the Governor to return the Bill to the Legislative Assembly of the State together with the requisite message and it was quite proper for the Legislative Assembly, when the Bill was so returned, to consider it accordingly. It follows, therefore, that when the Bill was again passed by the Legislative Assembly of Assam, it was proper to represent the Bill to the President for his consideration and it was open to the President to give his assent to the amended Bill, as he, in fact, did.

Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on article 31(4) and to a passage in the Judgment of this court in Visweshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(') and it is contended that the word "Legislature'', which occurs both in article 31(4) and article 389 means only the Chamber or Chambers of the Legislature and not the Governor or the Governor-General. We need not discuss the larger question as to the correct interpretation of the word "Legislature" as occurring in article 31(4) and suffice it to say that the very passage relied on by learned counsel makes it quite clear that the word "Legislature" is used in different senses in different articles and may be in different senses in different places in the same article and its meaning has to be ascertained

(1) [1952] S.C.R. 1020, 103,.

1956 keeping in view the subject or the context. In Tiew of the provisions of sections 18, 30 and 32 and sec- . ; 7 d 76 f h G f J d" Raja Bhairebe11dra t10ns 60, 73, 5 an o t e overnment o n Ia Narayan Bhu:P Act, 1935 to which reference has been made, we are v. clearly of opinion that the word "Legislature" has The state of Assam been used in article 389 in the larger sense, namely, comprising all the units that were concerned in the entire legislative process and included His Majesty represented by the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case might be.

We find no reason to think that our Constitution intended only to keep alive the Bills which were actually pending before the Legislative Chamber or Chambers but not those which having been passed by the Legislative Chamber or Chambers had been presented to the Governor-General or the Governor and were undergoing the final legislative process and awaiting the assent of His Majesty represented by the Governor-General or Governor, as the case might be.

We are, therefore, of opinion, although for different reasons, that the High Court properly answered the first part of issue (1).

Re. issue (2):-The Act having been properly passed by the Legislature of Assam, the Government of Assam was well within their rights under section 3 of the Act to declare that the estates of the tenure holders specified in the Notification vested in the State free from all encumbrances. There is no suggestion that the properties of Sm. Beda Bala Devi, the plaintiff in 'I'. S. No. 3 of 1955, were not "estates" within the meaning of the Act and accordingly the High Court has correctly decided this issue in favour of the State, so far as that plaintiff is concerned. The Raja, the plaintiff in T. S. No.' 1 of 1955, however, raised the contention that his properties were not "estates" as defined in the Act and that being the subject matter of issue ( 4), this aspect of issue (2) was also left open until the decision of issue (4). As the High Court has sent down the suit to the court of Subordiate Judge for disposal and determination of other issues, the final answer to issue (2), as regards the Raja, will depend on the determination of issue

(4) and must until then be kept open.

Das C.J.

1956 Re. issue (3):-The Act and its amendments are - challenged on the ground that they infringe the funda-

R"f;:,~';.:'!~:J, ra mental rights of the plaintiff under article 31 (2) and v. article 14 of the Constitution. If, however, the legis- The State of Assam lation is protected under article 31-A of the Constitution then the question of infringement of funda- Das C.J. mental rights of the plaintiff under articles 31 (2) and 14willnot arise. Article 31(4) protects an Act falling within it only against the contravention of the provisions of clause (2) of that article but not of those of article 14. Article 31-A, however, protects an Act falling within it even if it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III. It is obvious, therefore, that article 31-A gives greater and wider protection than does article 31(4). If, therefore, article 31-A applies no question can arise under article 31 (2) or article 14 and in that case article 31(4) need not be invoked at all.

What is protected by article 31-A is a law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of any such rights. There is no question that the impugned Act, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has in fact received his assent and, therefore, the proviso to article 31-A does not come into play.

The only question then is-is the impugned Act a law providing for the acquisition of an estate or any rights therein? The expression "estate" in relation to any local area, has been made by clause (2) (a) of this article, to have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area.

The preamble to the impugned Act recites the expediency of providing for the acquisition by the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders and certain other interests in the permanently settled areas and certain other estates in the districts of Goalpara, Garo Hills and Cachar in the State of Assam including their interests in forests, fisheries, hats, bazars and ferries, mines and minerals. Section

3 of that Act authorizes the State Government to t9S6 dsclare, from time to time, by Notifications that the R . Bh-. b a . a7a atre en ra estate or tenure of a proprietor or tenure-holder spe- Narayan Bhup cified in the Notification shall stand transferred to v. and vest in the State free from all encumbrances. The State of Assam Section 4 lays down the consequences that are to follow. It is thus clear that the Act purports to be a law for the acquisition by the1 State of estates or tenures.

The word "estate" as defined in section 2(k) means lands included under one entry in any of the general registers of revenue paying and revenuefree lands prepared and maintained under the law for the time being in force by the Deputy Commissioner and includes revenue-free lands not entered in any register.

Under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Reg. I of 1886) the Deputy Commissioner of every district is, by section 48, enjoined to prepare and keep in the prescribed form and manner a general register of revenue-paying estates, a general register of revenue-free estates and such other registers as the Government may direct.

Section 49 provides that until such registers are prepared the Government may direct that the existing registers kept by or under the control of the Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be registers prepared under section 48. It will be noticed that what are to be entered in the general registers are revenue-paying or revenue-free estates. The word "estate" is defined by section 3(b) to include six kinds of lands described in the six' clauses therein set out. This definition does not purport to be an exhaustive definition of "estate" but only includes certain enumerated items within the meaning of that expression. The word "estate" is defined in the Goalpara Tenancy Act (Assam Act I of 1929) exactly in the same way as it is defined in the impugned Act, namely, as meaning lands included under one entry in any of the General Registers of revenue-paying or revenue-free lands prepared and maintained by the Deputy Commissioner. The properties of both the plaintiffs appellants are and have been in point of fact entered in the General Register. An "estate" within the meaning of the

Das C.J.

1956 Assam Land and Revenue Regulation I of 1886 is also

R . Bh-:- b 4 ail "estate" within the meaning of the Goalpara a1a aJre en ra T A (A I f l .

Narayan Bhuf> enancy ct ct o 929) and of the impugned Act. ...

The impugned Act, therefore, is a law providing for The State of Assam the acquisition by the State of an "estate" within the

Das C./. meaning of article 31-A and, that being so, its constitutionality or validity cannot be questioned on the ground of any cont; avention of any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights. There is no dispute that the lands comprised in the trust estate of Sm. Beda Bala Devi, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 3 of 1955 is an "estate" as defined in each of the aforesaid statutes including the impugned Act. The question whether the amount paid by the Raja, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 1 of 1955, is revenue or tribute, whether his properties have been from before 1886 entered properly in the General Register of revenue-paying estate and whet.her such properties come within the operation of the impugned Act, are the subject matter of issue (4), but those questions have no bearing on the question whether the impugned Act is entitled to the protection of article 31-A. If the plaintiff Raja's properties are not "estate" as defined in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation or the Goalpara Tenancy Act or the impugned Act, then the Notification under section 3 of the impugned Act will not affect him but that will be, not because the impugned Act is not a law providing for the State acquisition of an. "estate" but, bees.use the Raja's .properties are not "estates" within the purview of the impugned Act. The fact

that the definition of "estate" in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is only an inclusive and not an exhaustive definition, that the Raja's properties have been in fact entered in the General Register of revenue-paying lands and that the lands falling within any of the six categories enumerated in section 3(b) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation will certainly fall within the wider ambit of the definition of "estate" given in the impugned Act cannot be overlooked. The impugned Act is nonetheless a law providing for State acquisition of "estate" even if its

definition of "estate" comprises something more than 1956 what is comprised in the six categories included with- - in that term in section 3(b) of the Assam Land and RaNJa,.BhaireBbehnra R R l , f I . d h a a; yan u,,, evenue egu at10n o 1886. n our JU gment t e v. impugned Act is fully protected by article 31-A.

The State of Assam In the view we have taken on article 31-A, it is unnecessary to discuss the question of the applicability Das C.J. of article 31(4).

We have, however, to touch very briefly a few subsidiary points urged before us.

It has been said that the impugned Act constitutes a colourable exercise of legislative power, for while it purports to specify the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given, it actually makes provisions which result in illusory compensation or no compensation at all.

The doctrine of colourable legislation is relevant only in connection with the question of legislative competency as explained by this Court in K. 0.

Gajapati Narain Deb v. State of Orissa(1). Here there is no question of any legislative incompetency. The gravamen of the present complaint is as tot.he quantum of compensation, which, in view of the article 31-A, cannot be raised.

Reference has been made to section 11 of the impugned Act according to which in the computation of the gross income is to be included the gross rent payable by the tenant immediately subordinate, for the agricultural years preceding the date of vesting. It is argued that the Act is vague and indefinite, because of the use of the word "years" in plural. The High Court has given cogent reasons, with which we agree, for holding that the word "years" in the plural has been retained in the Act by mistake or oversight and it should be read in the singular. Moreover, the Act has since been amended retrospectively by section 4 of Assam Act V of 1956 and the question does not arise.

The Act is also impugned on the ground of discrimination, which offends article 14 of the Constitution. This question again is not open to the appellant in view of our decision on article 31-A. Further

(1) (1954] S.O.R. 1: A.LR. 1953 S 0. 375.

1956 article 14 does not really help the appellant.

It 'is

R . . b d said that the State can pick and choose the estate of a1a Bha.re en ra • d d 1 h f h ' f ' Narayan BhuJ> one zam1.n ar an eave out t ose o t e1r avounte v. ones, as mdeed they have since done by withdrawing Tlic State of Assam the Notification with respect to Gouripore and Prabatjoar estates. There is no force in this conten- Das C.J. tion in view of the decisions of this court in Biswambhar Singh v. The State of Orissa and others(') and Thakur Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan(•).

It is said that the Act only applies to some Lakheraj estates, that is to say, Lakheraj estates within the boundaries of a permanently settled estate but not to other Lakheraj estates. The acquisition of Lakheraj estates within the boundaries of permanently settled estates clearly facilitates the object of acquiring permanently settled areas and such Lakheraj estates within the boundaries of permanently settled estates constitute a class distinct from other Lakheraj estates not so situate and, therefore, the charge of discrimination cannot, in view of the principles laid down by this court, apply to the impugned Act.

Lastly it is said that there is discrimination because of different scales of compensation which have been prescribed for different estates. It is not difficult to find a rational basis for such classification of proprietors of different income groups.

We need not, however, dilate on this point, for we have already held that the Act is not open to challenge on the ground of contravention of any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

There was in the Raja's T. S. No. I of 1955, a prayer for injunction restraining the State from taking possession of his estate.

The High Court has rejected that prayer on grounds which appear to us to be quite cogent and convincing and as we see no substantial risk of irreparable loss to the Raja we do not consider it right to reverse even that order of the High Court.

For reasons stated above both these appeals are dismissed with costs. As the two appeals were heard together there will be one set of costs of hearing to be apportioned equally between the two appellants.

(I) [1954) S.C.R. 842.

{2) [1966) 2 S.C.R. SOS, 816.

303

RAJA BHAIREBENDRA NARAYAN BHUP

THE STATE OF ASSAM

S. R. DAS, C.J.

BHAGWATI

B. P. SINHA

JAFER IMAM JJ.

Assam State Acqitisition of Zamindaries Act

Assam Act XVIII of 1951

Assam Act VI of 1954

Arts. 389, 395, 31( A), 31(2), 14

Government of India Act, 1935

Assam High Court

Assam Act VI of 1954

March 28, 1949

January 25, 1950

July 27, 1951

September 11, 1951

April 15, 1954

Arts. 31(2) and 14

April 11

1956

Raja Bha

State Legislature of Assam

Art. 389

s. 76

Government of India Act, 1935

That under the Government of India Act, 1935

s. 75

That under the Government of India Act, 1935

That under the Government of India Act, 1935

s. 76

Art. 389

Art. 31

Raja BhairebendM That the Act

Art. 3

Art. 14

[1955) 2 S.C.R. 303

Article 132

P. N. Mitter

D. N. Mukerji

R. R. Biswas

P. K. Ohatterji

S. M.

Lahiri

Naunit Lal

Raja Bhairebendra

Narayan Bl•uP DAS

State of Assam

Raja Bhairabendra Narain Bhup

Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951

Assam Act XVIII of 1951

Assam Act VI of 1954

section 3(1)

23rd December, 1954

On the 23rd December, 1954 the appellant Sm.

Bedabala Debi

article 228

21st January 1955

16th February 1955

article 31

article 14

article 31

article 31(4)

Bedabala

Raja

As regards the Raja, the plaintiff in T.S. No.

article 132

11th August 1948

23rd September 1948

Legislative Assembly of Assam

28th March 1949

Assam

section 75

Government of India Act, 1935

26th of January 1950

Constitution of India

28th January 1950

Assam Act XVIII of 1951

Assembly passed a Bill amending Assam Act

Assam Act VI of

section 3(1)

15th April 1955

section 299(3)

Das C.J.

section 299

Government of India Act, 1935

section 299(3)

Government of India Act, 1935

Narayan BhuJ

section 109

Assam Legislative Assembly

28th March, 1949

section 75

Government of India Act, 1935

section 76

26th January 1950

article 395

Indian Independence Act, 1947

Government of India Act, 1935

Tindal

Tenterden

Faz!

Ali

Government of India Act, 1935

Article 389

Parliament

Assam Parliament

Section 30

Government of India Act, 1935

section 73

Section 32

section 75

section 73(4)

section 76

section 76(1)

section 76(2)

section 76

section 76

Narayan BhuJ

Government of India Act, 1935

British Parliament

sections 17, 55 and 56

sections 69, 71 and 90

Section 18

Section 60

section 30

section 73

Government of India Act, 1935

section 32

sections 75 and 76

section 18

India Act, 1935

section 9

Indian Independence Act, 1947

Narayan Bhup ment of India Act, 1935

section 18

section 60

section 32

sections 75 and 76

article 389

article 168

article 200

article 201

article 31(4)

article 31(4)

article 389

article 31(4)

sections 18, 30 and 32

article 389

Government of Assam

section 3

Beda Bala Devi

Raja

article 31

article 14

article 31

articles 31

Article 31(4)

article 14

Article 31

article 31

article 31(4)

article 31

article 31

article 14

article 31(4)

article 31

article 31

Goalpara

Garo Hills

Cachar

Section

3

Section 4

section 2(k)

section 48

Section 49

section 48

section 3(b)

Assam Act I of 1929

Assam Land and Revenue Regulation

article 31

Beda Bala Devi

Beda Bala Devi, the plaintiff in T. S. No.

article 31

section 3

section 3(b)

section 3(b)

RaNJa,

BhaireBbehnra

article 31

article 31

article 31(4)

article 31

section 11

section 4

Assam Act V of 1956

article 14

article 31

S 0

article 14