FACTS OF THE CASE-

1. That on 30 December, 1949 the Bihar Land Reforms Bill was introduced in the
Legislative Assembly of Bihar and passed by both the houses. It received the
President’s assent on 11 September, 1950.
2. That on 25 September, 1950 a notification u/s 3 of the Act was published stating
that land belonging to the Respondent and two others had been vested in the State
of Bihar under the provisions of the Act.
3. That the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court of Patna
requesting to declare the Act as unconstitutional and issue the writ of Mandamus on
the State of Bihar.
4. That the High Court declared the Act as unconstitutional as violative of Article 14,
which was appealed against in the Supreme Court.
5. That during the pendency of the appeal against the said decision, the Constitution
(First Amendment) Act, 1950 was passed which was again challenged as
unconstitutional, but the Court negated the contentions.

ISSUES INVOLVED-

1. Whether the Bihar Legislature was competent to enact the legislation?

2. Whether the Act was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution?
3. Whether the Act contravened Article 31(1) of the Constitution?

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES-

1. APPELLANT
2. The Learned Attorney General submitted that the concepts of acquisition and
compensation have different origins; one is a sovereign power of the State and the
other is a natural right of the person deprived of his property. This right of
compensation is not implicit in Entry 36.
3. He further urged that Entry 42 of the Concurrent List made it open to the
Parliament or State Legislature to make law which may or may not provide for
compensation in return for acquisitions of land.
4. He also submitted that it was beyond the scope of the Court to decide on bona fide
or malafide of the Legislatures.
5. RESPONDENT
6. It was submitted that the Bihar Legislature was not competent to enact the
impugned Act and the confiscation of the lands not being for public purpose
rendered the Act unconstitutional. Also, the Act was a fraud on the Constitution and
certain parts of it are vague and unenforceable.
7. It was further argued that Entry 36 of State List of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution provided that no property can be acquired without requisite
compensation in return. Also, the provisions of Articles 31(4), 31-A and 31-B of
the Constitution have no bearing on the entry.
8. Further, for every land acquisition, there is a concomitant obligation to compensate
for it and the Act’s illusory provisions in this regard render it unconstitutional and
Article 31(4) does not protect it.
 9. It was also urged that the powers conferred under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List
has a duty coupled with it to pay compensation to the person deprived of his
property.
10. The Counsel, Mr. Das argued that there was no public purpose behind the Act and
no private property can be acquired without a public purpose. Also, there is no
definite indication as to the public purpose of the Act and its enactment will only
cause loss to a large community.
11. He further contended that the object of the Act was to acquire the properties of the
Zamindars by compensation out of the money of the Zamindars as well. In addition
to acquisition of their land by the Government, they would also have to pay again
out of their own pocket.
12. Lastly, it was urged that if some provisions of the Act are void and unconstitutional,
the whole Act must be declared ultra vires.

JUDGMENT-

The Supreme Court Bench comprising CJ Patanjali Shastri, Justices M.C. Mahajan,
Mukherjea, Das and C. Aiyar held:

1. The Hon’ble Court observed that some provisions of the Act may be harsh and bad
against the Zamindars but that does not render the whole Act a fraud on the
Constitution.
2. On the above observation they held that Sections 4(b) and 23(f) are unconstitutional
but the rest of the Act is valid. Also, a writ of Mandamus was issued to the State of
Bihar to not give effect to the said provisions.
3. The Court explicitly said that the Bihar Legislature was competent to enact the
legislation and the Act did not contravene Article 31(4) of the Constitution. Also,
the acquisition of the lands was for public purpose and the subject matter of the Act
fell under the ambit of Article 31(4).

RULE OF LAW-

The main point of law to be determined in the case was whether the enactment of
The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was beyond the scope of the Bihar Legislature and
if the impugned Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION-

The Hon’ble Court was right in upholding the constitutionality of the legislation as it
has been pointed out innumerable times that the Court should favor more in the
upholding constitutionality of a legislation unless and until it is proved otherwise.

If there is some part of a legislation that seems invalid or bad, and it is severable
from the rest of the Act, the Court must declare those provisions as unconstitutional
and uphold the rest of the legislation as valid. But if that part is so inextricably
interwoven into the Act, then the whole of the Act must be struck down by the Court.