DASU KHAN Vs. MOHAN BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raise a common question of law and hence they are dealt with in one judgment.

(2.) In 1948 the Bihai Legislature passed the Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 2 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of restoring the Tana Bhagat raiyats' lands in the district of Ranchi which were sold away in execution of decrees for arrears of rent in pursuance of the freedom movement launched by the Indian National Congress. Tana Bhagat raiyats were defined in Section 2 (1) of the Act as raiyats claiming the membership of an association commonly known as Tana Bhagats who defaulted in payment of rent for their lands in pursuance of the freedom movement launched by the Indian National Congress. The Act consisted of ten sections. The most important section was Section 4 which provided for restoration to Tana Bhagats of the lands sold away for arrears of rent on their application to the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi and on then depositing with him such sum as might be determined by him having regard to the amount for which the holding was sold to the auction-purchaser and compensation for improvements made by the purchaser after the date of his purchase. Section 5 conferred power on the Deputy Commissioner to direct restoration of possession to such Tana Bhagat raiyats, and Section 6 stated that the sum deposited by the Tana Bhagat shall be paid to the auction-purchaser or subsequent alienee. Section 7 provided for right of appeal to the superior revenue authorities. Section 8 barred the jurisdiction of the civil courts Section 9 conferred emergency powers on the Deputy Commissioner, and Section 10 dealt with the rule making power This Act was amended in 1951 by Bihai Act XVI of 1951 which received the assent of the President. The main change effected by this amending Act was the enlargement of the definition of Tana Bhagat omitting all references to aboriginals found in the 1948 Act. Apparently, the intention was that even non-aboriginal raiyats whose lands were sold away in consequence of their failure to pay rent of their holdings due to the freedom movement should get the benefit of the Act. There were also some minor alterations which need not be noticed here. In 1956, the Bihar Legislature made a more radical amendment to the Act by Bihar Act XVIII of 1956. The mam changes brought about by the amending Act of 1956 are as follows. The definition of Tana Bhagat was recast so us to avoid the necessity of preparation of A list of such Tana Bhagat raiyats by the Deputy Commissioner within the prescribed time. The question whether a particular applicant is or is not a Tana Bhagat raiyat was required to be decided in each restoration proceeding on the basis of the facts established. Section 4 was completely recast and the Deputy Commissioner was given express power to direct restoration not only on the application by an aggrieved Tana Bhagat raiyat, but also on his own knowledge or on receipt of any information. But the main condition for restoration, namely, the deposit by the old raiyat of such sum as may be determined by the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the amount for which the holding was sold away for arrears of rent and adding the compensation for the improvements effected by the purchaser, was retained. There were some verbal alterations of preamble, title and Sections 2, 5, 6 and 10. Section 9 was completely omitted. This amending Act of 1956 was also reserved for the consideration of the President and assented to by him on the 25th of July, 1956. In 1960, the Act was further amended by Bihar Act III of 1960. The main purpose of this amending Act of 1960 was to confer on Tana Bhagat raiyats a right to make a fresh application for restoration before the 31st of March, 1962 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any decree 01 order of any court made prior to the date of commencement of this amending Act

(3.) The constitutional validity of the Act came up for consideration before a Bench of this court in 1958 and in Julius Oraon v. Mt. Saniarao, AIR 1958 Pat 519 that Bench held that the Act of 1948 was invalid inasmuch as it contravened the provisions of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. But their Lordships took special care to point out that they were not concerned with the effect of the amendments made by Bihar Act XVI of 1951 and by Bihar Act XVIII of 1956, because in the case before them the statute for consideration was the original unamended Act of 1948. Hence they refused to go into the question as to whether in consequence of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 the Act as amended in 1951 and in 1956 was revivified or revitalised.