RAMESHWAR KUMAR Vs. R P MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these four cases, which have been heard together, a common question of law arises for determination, namely, whether Section 4 of Bihar Act XXI of 1956, which amends Section 35 of Act I of 1894, is constitutionally valid. On the 22nd September, 1956, the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1956, received the assent of the Governor, and the assent was published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, of the 6th October, 1956. Section 4 of the statute is in the following terms : --

(2.) The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners in all these applications is that the assent of the President is constitutionally necessary if the Bihar amendment was to have legal effect and so the proceedings started against the petitioners with regard to temporary occupation of the land by the Land Acquisition Officer of Monghyr in pursuance of the order of the Collector are illegal and ultra vires. In our opinion, the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners is well founded and must prevail. The Bihar Amendment Act was promulgated before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act came into effect. The Bihar Legislature enacted the Amending Act in exercise of the legislative power conferred by item No. 36 of the State List as the Constitution stood before the Seventh Amendment. But the amending legislation required the assent of the President under Article 31 (3) of the Constitution, read with Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. Article 31 (2) states as follows : --

(3.) We accordingly allow all these applications and order that a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution should be issued for quashing the proceedings taken against the petitioners in all these four cases, namely, Case Nos. 52T of 1956-57, 27T of 1956-57 and 47 of 1956-57, of the Court of the Land Acquisition Officer of Monghyr. We accordingly allow these applications. There will be no order as to costs.