The Patna High Court dismissed a Petition filed seeking declaration that newly added Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy noted that the constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2016 as also that of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 both came to be considered by the High Court in Sudhakar Jha and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.; 2023 (6) BLJ 397.
By the Amendment Act of 2016, amendments were affected in sections 30, 32 and 45 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, which are not essential to be dealt with for the purpose of the instant application. By the Amendment Act of 2019, section 16(3) of the Act which gave right of preemption was repealed and section 16(4) was added which provided that all cases of proceedings pending before any of the authorities/tribunals/Courts shall be deemed to have abated and the purchase money together with the sum equal to 10% shall be refunded to the depositor without any interest.
The Court by its judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed in the case of Sudhakar Jha (supra) dismissed the application so far as challenge to the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 2016 as also the Amendment Act of 2019 was concerned. It was further held that cases arising out of an application under section 16(3) of the Act stand abated.
The other two prayers of the petitioner are with respect to Clause (2) of the Amendment Act of 2019 whereby section 16(3) providing right of preemption was repealed and a new section 16(4) added. The newly added section 16(4)(i) provided that all cases or proceedings pending before the State Government, the Board of Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal, the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, the Additional Collector, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms or in any other Court shall be deemed to be abated and further section 16(4)(ii) provided that pursuant to repeal of section 16(3) of the Act any purchase money together with the sum equal to 10% thereof shall be refunded without any interest to the depositor.
The issue of the validity of the Amendment Act of 2019 was dealt with in detail in the case of Sudhakar Jha (supra) including the grounds on which an enacted law may be declared unconstitutional. All the points being raised by the petitioner herein having already been dealt with, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 2016 as also that of the Amendment Act of 2019.
The Court noted that so far as abatement of all pending proceedings as provided in the newly added section 16(4)(i) of the Act is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Punyadeo Sharma and Ors. vs. Kamla Devi and Ors. [2022 (1) BLJ 434 (SC)], while dealing with the same held that the words ‘in any other Court’ is wide enough to include the constitutional Courts , the High Court and the Supreme Court. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner to hold the order dated 2.4.2019 passed in the Preemption Appeal of 2016-17 and of 2016-17 as illegal is also not sustainable and fit to be rejected.