SHEIKH MOHAMMAD ZIA Vs. UNITED PROVINCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit against the United Provinces by a land-holder of the district of Allahabad, by name Sheikh Mohammad Zia. He challenges the validity of 12 specific sections of the U. P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939) and he also challenges the validity of the U. P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remissions) Act--Act 18 of 1939. The plaint recites the history of the legislation for consolidating and amending the law relating to agricultural tenancies from 20 April 1988, the date of the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Assembly, to 1 January 1940, the date when the Act came into force. It is alleged that when leave was sought to introduce the bill, certain members of the Legislative Assembly objected that, as some of the provisions were of an expropriatory character against the land-holders, the previous sanction of the Governor for its introduction was necessary under Section 299(3), Government of India Act; and, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Governor, who accorded his sanction on the assumption that such sanction was necessary. It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the Legislature had no jurisdiction to consider the bill without having first obtained such sanction. It is further contended that when the bill was passed, it was the duty of the Governor under his Instrument of Instructions to reserve his assent for consideration of the bill by the Governor-General inasmuch as he had expressed a doubt as to whether the bill offended against the provisions of Section 299, Government of India Act.

(2.) In paras. 7 and 8 of the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff had instituted certain suits against his tenants for arrears of rent and in some of those suits he had obtained decrees, but the hearing of the suits and the execution of the decrees have all along been stayed by a series of Acts, namely Act 4 of 1937, Act 6 of 1987 and Act 9 of 1938, and finally the U. P. Stayed Arrears of Bent (Remissions) Act--Act 18 of 1939 was passed by the Legislature and received the assent of the Governor on 30 January 1940, and by the operation of that Act all arrears of rent due to the plaintiff -- whether decreed or undecreed -- up to 1944 Fasli have been completely wiped off. The land-holders have thereby been deprived of their valuable rights recognized by the existing law, and the Act--that is to say Act 18 of 1939--was ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. The relief claimed in the plaint was a declaration that the U. P. Tenancy Act -- Act 17 of 1939 -- and the U. P. Stayed Arrears of Kent (Remissions) Act--Act 18 of 1939-- were ultra vires of the Legislature, being opposed to Section 299 and other provisions of the Government of India Act.

(3.) In defence the allegations of invalidity were denied. It was contended that the impugned sections of Act 17 of 1939 and the provisions of Act 18 of 1939 were not ultra vires, that Section 299, Government of India Act, had no application, that in any case nothing that was done offended against the provisions of that section, that it was unnecessary for the Governor to reserve his assent and that, even if it was necessary for him to do so, the matter of his assent cannot be called in question in a Court of law--vide Secs.53(2) and 75, Government of India Act. It was also contended that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, that a suit for a declaration of this character is incompetent and that it is barred by Section 42, Specific Relief Act. It was further alleged that the notice given by the plaintiff under Section 80, Civil P. C.; was invalid and on this ground also the suit was liable to be dismissed. The following issues were settled : 1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action against the defendant ? 2. Does a suit lie for a mere declaration that an Act of the Legislature or any of its provisions is illegal and ultra vires and has the civil Court jurisdiction to entertain such a suit ? 3. Is the suit barred by Section 42, Specific Relief Act ?