BISWAMBHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution by owners of large tracts of land situated in the District of Sundergarh which was formerly part of the Feudatory State of Gangpur. The petitioner in O.J.C. 164 of 1954 Biswambar Singh may conveniently be described as the Zamindar of Hemgir though his status as a zamindar is one of the points for decision in these petitions. For the same reason the petitioner in O.J.C. 181 of 1954, Janardan Singh may conveniently be described as the Zamindar of Sarapgarh. The zamindari of Hemgir extends to about 392 sq. miles consisting of about 139 villages and about 40 per cent, of the total area of the zamindari (145 sq. miles) consists of reserved forests. The zamindari of Sarapgarh extends over 45 sq. miles only and includes 32 villages.

(2.) THE well known Orissa Estates Abolition Act (Orissa Act 1 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in February 1952, and the Government of Orissa tried to take over these zamindaris under S. 3 of the Act. There upon, these zamindars, along with the zamindar of Nagra filed application under Art. 226 of the Constitution (O.J.Cs. Nos. 65, 67 and 68 of 1952) challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. These applications were heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the then Chief Justice, Hon'ble B. Jagannadhadas and myself. As there was difference of opinion between us on some of the material points my learned brother, Justice Mohapatra, as the third Judge, re -heard the matter and subsequently agreed with the then Chief Justice.

(3.) ARTICLE 31 of the Constitution also has undergone several amendments in consequence of the decisions of some of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court. As the Article stood in 1951 no property could be acquired for a public purpose under any law unless that law provided for compensation for the property acquired, and either fixed the amount of compensation or specified the principles and the manner in which compensation was to be determined (clause (2)). Clause (3) required that such a law should be assented to by the President before it could have any effect. Clause (4) conferred a special immunity against any challenge to the validity of such a law on the ground of contravention of clause (2) of Art. 31, provided that a Bill containing such a provision on which was pending at the commencement of the Constitution had, after being passed by the Legislature, been assented to by the President. Clause (2) of Art. 31 was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act 1955 by which any law providing for compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose was protected from challenge in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law was not adequate.