- (1.)The common question which arises for decision in this group of cases is as regards the validity of the Bihar Act No. XVI of 1959 (Bihar Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1959), in so far as it amends with retrospective effect Ss. 4 and 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, to be indicated later, and inserts the new sections, S. 7B and S. 7C in that Act. It appears that sometime after the Bihar Land Reforms Act became law and action was taken under S. 3 thereof by the State Government issuing notifications, declaring that the estates or tenures of proprietors or tenure-holders, specified in the notifications had passed to and become vested in the State, the Revenue authorities started interfering with the rights of those ex-proprietors and ex-tenure-holders to hold Melas on lands of which they were thereafter in occupation as occupancy raiyats under the State and started settling rights to realize tolls from such Melas on behalf of the State Government. Aggrieved by this action taken by the Revenue authorities on behalf of the State Government applications were made by several of these erstwhile intermediaries - now occupancy raiyats - to the High Court of Patna for writs restraining the Government and its officers from such interference with their rights.
(2.)Five such applications have given rise to the five appeals which are numbered as C. A. No. 351 of 1959, C. A. No. 27 of 1960, C. A. No. 92 of 1960, C. A. No. 285 of 1960 and C. A. No. 411 of 1960. The High Court held that in view of the provisions of S. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (before its amendment) and the fact that the provisions made in S.4 (a) of the Act about the consequences that would ensue on the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State were "subject to" the provisions of S.6, the State had no right to hold Melas on the Bakasht lands of the ex-intermediaries - now occupancy raiyats. Accordingly the High Court allowed the applications and issued writs as prayed for. Against these orders of the High Court the State of Bihar and its officers have preferred the five appeals mentioned above, after obtaining special leave from this Court.
(3.)Some time after special leave was obtained by these appellants the Bihar Legislature enacted in 1959. the Bihar Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1959 (Bihar Act XVI of 1959). This Act amended inter alia S. 4 cl. (b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, by adding the word "Mela" after the words "jalkars, hats" and bazaars" and by omitting the words "subject to the subsequent provisions of this Chapter" in cl. (a) of S.4. It also amended S. 6 of the 1950 Act by substitution for the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" the words "subject to the provisions of Ss 7A and 7B". Of these S. 7B provides that "Where on any land deemed to be settled with the intermediary under the provisions of S. 5, S. 6 or S. 7, a Mela was being held by the intermediary at any time within 3 years of the date of vesting, the right to hold such Mela on such land shall with effect from such date, vest in the State and notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the State shall have and the intermediary shall not, except with the consent of the State Government have the right to hold such Mela on such land or to do anything which may prejudicially affect such Mela." Section 7C contains provisions as regards settlement of hats, bazars or melas referred to in S. 7A and S. 7B and provides inter alia that settlements will be made with the outgoing intermediary or his heir after application is received from him and if there are several of them who apply for settlement, with the most suitable of them. The Amending Act made the amendments mentioned above, except the insertion of S. 7C, retrospective, with effect from the date of enactment of the parent Act. The amending Act had already been passed, when several other applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution for similar relief against the interference by the Government with the intermediaries' right to hold Melas came up for consideration before the High Court. The High Court rejected these applicants' attack against the validity of the Amending Act and held that in view of the provisions now made the applicants were not entitled to any relief. Civil appeal No. 574 of 1960 has been preferred by one of such applicants on a certificate granted by the High Court.