MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Those three appeals arise out of three orders dated 4-12-1954 by which the learned Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs, now appellants before us, for' the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the State of Bihar and its officers, agents and employees from holding an enquiry under Section 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1953, and from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the appellants in respect of a large number of houses and a very large area of land. The appeals have been argued together as a common question of law arises therein, and this judgment will govern all the three appeals.

(2.) In appeal No. 424 the appellant is the Mineral Development Company' Ltd., a limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office in Calcutta. In appeal No. 425 the appellant is Messrs. Jharkhand Mines and Industries Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office in Calcutta. The appellant in appeal No. 426 is the Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd., having its registered office in Calcutta. The Mineral Development Company Ltd., it is stated holds a mineral lease dated 29-12-1947- for 999 years in respect of 3028 villages appertaining to the estate of the Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh, an estate which is now vested in the State Government of Bihar by virtue of a notification under Section 3, Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The same company also holds a lease dated 29-12-1947 in respect of a number of houses or buildings, the period of the lease being 101 years, executed by the said Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh. The Jharkhand Mines and Industries Ltd. hold a mining lease for working coal, dated 19-2-1948 for 7500 bighas of land in the estate, of the Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh. They also hold a reversionary lease in respect of 261 villages, dated 20-2-1948; both the leases are for the period of 939 years. This Company also holds a lease for certain buildings lying in the same estate, the leases for the buildings having been executed in 1950. The Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd.' hold raiyati lease executed by the Raja of Ramgarh on 12-2-1948 by means of which more than 2,56,000 acres of land have been settled with them. The aforesaid three companies have brought three suits against the State of Bihar in which they have asked for certain declarations, one of the declarations being that Section 4 (h), Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is unconstitutional and unworkable. They also want a declaration that the buildings leased to the two Companies, namely, the Mineral Development Company Ltd. and the Jharkhand Mines and Industries Ltd. are protected under Section 11, Bihar Land Reforms Act and the State Government cannot take possession of those buildings and houses. In all the three suits the plaintiff Companies ask for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the State Government its officers, agents and employees, from taking possession of the aforesaid buildings and houses or of the lands which had been settled with the third Company, namely, the Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd. In all these three suits the plaintiff Companies also asked for the issue of a temporary injunction, which prayer the learned Subordinate Judge rejected by his order dated 4-12-19.54. It is against that order that the present appeals have bean filed. I may state here that in all the three suits, the State of Bihar filed a written statement in which it was stated that the relevant provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, were constitutional and valid; it was also alleged that the leases or transfers which the Raja of Ramgarh had made in favour of the plaintiff Companies were bogus and colourable transfers for the purpose of evading or defeating the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and that the transfers were without consideration and the transferees were not in possession. It was also alleged that Section 11, Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, did not protect the houses and buildings of the first two plaintiff Companies. On the same grounds the State of Bihar also resisted the prayer of the plaintiff Companies for the issue of a temporary injunction,

(3.) The first and foremost question which has been agitated before us on behalf of the appellants is if Section 4(h) Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, is 'prima facie', unconstitutional and invalid. The constitutionality of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was considered by the Supreme Court in --'State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh', AIR 1952 SC 252 (A). By a majority decision it was held that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was valid except the provisions of Section 4(b) and Section 23(1), these provisions only being held unconstitutional and void. I may state here that Section 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was amended by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1953. After the amendment, Section 4(h) is in these terms :