# RAJA BHAIREBENDRA NARAYAN BHUP v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 303
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-04-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 310 and 3ll of 1955
- **Bench:** S. R. Das, Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raja-bhairebendra-narayan-bhup-v-the-state-of-assam-1311
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Zamindaries, Acquisition of-Bill passed by the Provincial
Legislative Assembly reserved by the Governor for consideration of the
Governor General-Returned by the Governor General sil{lgesting
reservation for the President--'Promiilgation of the OonstitutionEffect-Oompetency of the Governor to reserve-State Legislative
Assembly, if could continue the Bill-Constitutional validity of the
Act-Provisions, if discriminatory and violative of fundamental
rights-Assam State Acqitisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 (Assam
Act XVIII of 1951) as amended by Assam Act VI of 1954-0onsti·
tution of India, Arts. 389, 395, 31( A), 31(2), 14-Government of
India Act, 1935 (26 Geo.~· Oh. 2), ss. '15, '16.
The appellants by two suits, which were heard by 11 Full Bench
of the Assam High Court, challenged the Constitutional validity of
the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 as amended
by the Assam Act VI of 1954. The Assam Legislative Assembly
had passed the Bill on March 28, 1949. It was presented to the
Governor and reserved by him for the consideration of the Governor
General who, in view of the impending constitutional changes, on
January 25, 1950, returned the Bill to the Governor suggesting that
it might be reserved for the consideration of the President. While
the Bill was in transit and before it actually reached the Governor,
the Constitution came into force.
The Governor reserved the Bill
for the consideration of the President and sent it to him. The
President returned the Bill suggesting ce1·tain alterations. The State
Legislative Assembly considered them and passed the Bill suitably
amended. It received the President's assent on July 27, 1951,
and became an Act. On September 11, 1951, the State Legislative
Assembly passed an amending Bill which was assented to by the
President. The Act as amended was brought into force on April 15,
1954, and a Notification was issued by the State Government under
the impugned Act declaring that the properties of the appellants,
along with those of others, would vest in the State.
It was con·
tended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned Act was not
within the competence of the Sta.ts Legislature, it was not enacted
according to law and infringed the fundamental rights of the appel·
!ants under Arts. 31(2) and 14 of the Constitution. Tbe High Court
repelled these contentions and they were reiterated in appeal.
Held, that the impugned Act was passed according to law, its
~o
1956
April 11
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
provisions were constitutionally valid and the decision of the High
Court must be affirmed.
Raja Bha,rebendra
,
Narayan BhuP
That the repeal of the Government of Indrn Act, 1935, by Art.
v
395 of the Constitution could not wipe out the Bill as it was, im·
The State~! Assam mediately before the commencement of the Constitution, pending
before the Governor General and/or the Governor who represented
His Majesty the King who was a part of the Provincial Legislature
and was, therefore, pending before the Provincial Legislature and,
consequently, the State Legislature of Assam was competent under
Art. 389 to continue the same.
That although the Governor General might not have acted
constitutionally under s. 76 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
in suggesting that the Bill might be reserved for the President's consideration, his action, in the absence of a positive declaration to
that effect, could not amount to a withholding of assent under that
section and effect a. termination of the bill, contrary to his express
intention indicated by the suggestion itself that it should remain
pending.
That under the Government of India Act, 1935, His Majesty
the King was an integral part of the Legislature and when the Bill
was presented to the Governor or the Governor Genernl u.nder s. 75
or s. 76 of the Act, in due couree of legislation, and neither of them
gave or withheld assent in the name of His Majesty, it remained
pending, both in law and reality, before his Majesty and

## Text

_Characters 0–39,710 of 50,101. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39710 for what follows._

-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
303
RAJA BHAIREBENDRA NARAYAN BHUP
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM
(with connected appeal)
[S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR,
B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.]
Zamindaries, Acquisition of-Bill passed by the Provincial
Legislative Assembly reserved by the Governor for consideration of the
Governor General-Returned by the Governor General sil{lgesting
reservation for the President--'Promiilgation of the OonstitutionEffect-Oompetency of the Governor to reserve-State Legislative
Assembly, if could continue the Bill-Constitutional validity of the
Act-Provisions, if discriminatory and violative of fundamental
rights-Assam State Acqitisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 (Assam
Act XVIII of 1951) as amended by Assam Act VI of 1954-0onsti·
tution of India, Arts. 389, 395, 31( A), 31(2), 14-Government of
India Act, 1935 (26 Geo.~· Oh. 2), ss. '15, '16.
The appellants by two suits, which were heard by 11 Full Bench
of the Assam High Court, challenged the Constitutional validity of
the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act of 1951 as amended
by the Assam Act VI of 1954. The Assam Legislative Assembly
had passed the Bill on March 28, 1949. It was presented to the
Governor and reserved by him for the consideration of the Governor
General who, in view of the impending constitutional changes, on
January 25, 1950, returned the Bill to the Governor suggesting that
it might be reserved for the consideration of the President. While
the Bill was in transit and before it actually reached the Governor,
the Constitution came into force.
The Governor reserved the Bill
for the consideration of the President and sent it to him. The
President returned the Bill suggesting ce1·tain alterations. The State
Legislative Assembly considered them and passed the Bill suitably
amended. It received the President's assent on July 27, 1951,
and became an Act. On September 11, 1951, the State Legislative
Assembly passed an amending Bill which was assented to by the
President. The Act as amended was brought into force on April 15,
1954, and a Notification was issued by the State Government under
the impugned Act declaring that the properties of the appellants,
along with those of others, would vest in the State.
It was con·
tended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned Act was not
within the competence of the Sta.ts Legislature, it was not enacted
according to law and infringed the fundamental rights of the appel·
!ants under Arts. 31(2) and 14 of the Constitution. Tbe High Court
repelled these contentions and they were reiterated in appeal.
Held, that the impugned Act was passed according to law, its
~o
1956
April 11
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
provisions were constitutionally valid and the decision of the High
Court must be affirmed.
Raja Bha,rebendra
,
Narayan BhuP
That the repeal of the Government of Indrn Act, 1935, by Art.
v
395 of the Constitution could not wipe out the Bill as it was, im·
The State~! Assam mediately before the commencement of the Constitution, pending
before the Governor General and/or the Governor who represented
His Majesty the King who was a part of the Provincial Legislature
and was, therefore, pending before the Provincial Legislature and,
consequently, the State Legislature of Assam was competent under
Art. 389 to continue the same.
That although the Governor General might not have acted
constitutionally under s. 76 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
in suggesting that the Bill might be reserved for the President's consideration, his action, in the absence of a positive declaration to
that effect, could not amount to a withholding of assent under that
section and effect a. termination of the bill, contrary to his express
intention indicated by the suggestion itself that it should remain
pending.
That under the Government of India Act, 1935, His Majesty
the King was an integral part of the Legislature and when the Bill
was presented to the Governor or the Governor Genernl u.nder s. 75
or s. 76 of the Act, in due couree of legislation, and neither of them
gave or withheld assent in the name of His Majesty, it remained
pending, both in law and reality, before his Majesty and, therefore,
before the Legislature and could properly be continued by the State
Legislature after the commencement of the Constitution. The Gov·
emor was, therefore, within his powers in reserving it for the President and the subsequent enactment of the Bill was in accordance
with the Constitution.
That the word
1Legislature' is not used in the same sense in
different articles of the Constitution, or even in different parts of
the same article, and its exact meaning has to be ascertained with
reference to the subject-matter on the context and in Art. 389 it is
used in the larger sense so a.a to comprise the entire legislative
machinery including His Majesty represented by the Governor
General or the Governor and does not mean merely the Legislative
Chamber or Chambers. The Constitution intended to keep alive not
merely Bills which were actually pending before the Legislative
Chamber but also Bills, such as the present, that had reached the
final stages of the.legislative process and were awaiting assent of the
Governor General or the Governor representing His Majesty.
Visweshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952) S.C.R.
1020, referred to.
That the impugned Act was a law providing for the acquis;tion
of estates by the State within the meaning of Art. 31-A of the Con·
stitution and was, as such, fully protected by it, and its validity
could not be questioned on the ground of any contravention of any
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
305
of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fun·
de.mental rights.
·
1956
Raja BhairebendM
That the Act could not, in the absence of any question as to
Narayan B/1up
legislative incompetency, be.impugned as a colourable exercise of
v.
legislative power on account of the provisions it made for payment The State of Assam
of compensation and any question relating to the quantum of com·
pensation would be barred under Art. 3l·A of the Constitution.
0. Gajapati Narain Deb v. State of Orissa, ([1954) S.C.R. 1),
referred to.
That Art. 14 of the Constitution could not really help the ap·
pellants, it being no longer open to them to contend, in view of the
decisions of this Court, that the State could pick and choose and
thus discriminate between one estate a.nd another.
Biswambhar Si'flgh v. The State of Orissa, ([1954] S.C.R. 842)
and Thakur Amar Singh v. Tlte State of Rajasthan, ([1955) 2 S.C.R.
303), referred to.
That, in view of the decisions of this Court, the Act could not
be ea.id to discriminate by reason of its application being limited to
such Lakheraj estates alone as fell within the boundaries of per·
manently settled estates and not extending to other Lakheraj estates
as the former constituted a distinct class by themselves and acqui·
sition of them facilitated the object of the Act. Nor could the pro·
vision for different scales of compensation prescribed for different
estates amount to discrimination as there is a. rational basis for such
classification of proprietors of different income groups.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeals
Nos. 310 and 3ll of 1955.
Appeals under Article 132 of the Constitution
from the judgment and order dated the 6th April,
1955 of the Assam High Court in Title Suits Nos. I &
3 of 1955.
N. 0. Ohatterji, P. N. Mitter, D. N. Mukerji and
R. R. Biswas, for the appellant in C. A. No. 310 of
1955.
P. K. Ohatterji, for the appellant in C. A. No. 311
of 1955.
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General/or India, S. M.
Lahiri, Advocate-General of Assam and Naunit Lal,
for the respondent in both appeals.
1956
Raja Bhairebendra
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956)
1956. April 11. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Narayan Bl•uP
DAS C. J.-It is intended by this judgment to dis-
•·
pose of both the appeals mentioned above.
The apThe State of Assam peals have come up before us in circumstances which
may shortly be recounted.
On 6th December 1954 the appellant Raja Bhairabendra Narain Bhup of Bijni filed T. S. No. 27 of
1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower
Assam District at Dhubri praying, inter alia, for a
declaration that the Assam State Acquisition of
Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act XVIII of 1951) as
amended by Assam Act VI of 1954 was not validly
p1tssed, was not law at all and was unconstitutional,
ultra vires and void and for a declaration that the
impugned Act was, at any rate, inapplicable to the
plaintiff's properties and the Notification purporting
to be issued under section 3(1) of the impugned Act
in respect of the plaintiff's properties was illegal,
ultra vires and void.
On the 23rd December, 1954 the appellant Sm.
Bedabala Debi wife of Sri Nripendra Narain
Choudhu~y as the Trustee of Chapor Tmst estate
filed T. S. No. 34 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam District at Dhubri
challenging the constitutionality of the same Act. In
this suit there was no contention, as there was in the
Raja's suit, that the Act, if valid, did not apply to
the estate of which she was the Trustee.
By two several orders made under article 228 by
the Assam High Court on the 21st January 1955 and
the 16th February 1955 respectively the said two suits
were transferred to the High Court and renumbered
as T. S. No. l of 1955 and.T. S. No. 3 of 1955 respectively.
The State of Assam duly filed its written
statements in both the suits controverting the contentions set forth in the respective plaints.
The High Court framed II issues in the Raja's T.S.
No. I of 1955. The issues common to the two suits
were as follows:-
( I) Whether the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act XVIH of 1951) and its
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
307
amendments are within the competence of the State
1956
Legislature and whether they were enacted according R . Bh-:- b a
?
a1a
a•re e11 ra
~~.
~~~
(2) Whether the Notification No. Rt./24/54/21
v.
dated 19th July 1954 published in the Assam Gazette The State of Assam
dated 21st July 1954 and issued under the Act aforesaid is valid?
Das C.J.
(3) Whether the said Act and its amendments
infringe the fundamental rights of the plaintiff under
article 31 (2) and article 14 of the Constitution; or
whether the legislation is protected under article 31-A
and article 31(4) of the Constitution?
(4) Whether the provisions of the Act and its
amendments can be enforced against the properties
in suit, even if the legislation is•held to be valid?
(5) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
The parties through their respective counsel agreed
that the issues of law which did not depend upon
adjudication of disputed facts should be heard and
decided first, leaving the other issues, if necessary,
to be dealt with later.
The two cases were heard by a Full Bench of the
Assam High Court. The learned Judges answered
issues 1 and 3 against the plaintiffs, although not for
identical reasons. They also answered issue 2 against
the plaintiffs, subject, as to the Raja, the plaintiff in
T.S. No. 1 of 1955, to the answer to issue 4. On the
last mentioned issue the Bench held that the Act
and the Notification being valid they could be enforced
against Sm. Bedabala, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 3 of
1955. As regards the Raja, the plaintiff in T.S. No. 1
of 1955, the Bench held that as the question whether
the properties of the Raja sought to have been notified were "estate" within the meaning of the impugned Act was one of fact, issue 4 could only be
decided, as between the Raja and the defendant State,
upon evidence led in the case. In the result the Bench
dismissed Sm. Bedabala's T.S. No. 3 of 1955 with
costs and directed the records of the Raja's T.S. No. 1
of 1955 to be sent down to the court below for trial
and disposal on the determination of issue 4 and
other issues. In view of the importance of the ques-
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
1956
tion involved in the issues dealt with by the Bench
R . 8 .-;-: •-a they gave leave under article 132 to the plaintiffs in
a1a nairevc;n ra b th h
•
1
h • C
H
Narayan Bhup
o
t e smts to appea to t 1s ourt.
ence the
v.
present appeals.
The State of Assam
At the hearing before us arguments have proceeded
on issues 1, 2 and 3. It will be convenient, therefore,
Das C.J.
to deal with the issues seriatim.
Re issue-1: Issue 1, it will be observed, has two
parts.
The first relates to the competence of the
State Legislature in enacting the impugned law and
the second part relates to the question whether the
impugned Act was enacted according to law.
As a
greater emphasis has been laid by learned counsel appearing in support of the appeals on the second part
of this issue, we take up and deal with that part
first.
The facts bearing on this part of the issue may now
be summarised.
On the 11th August 1948 a Bill
called Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill
was published in the Assam Gazette.
On the 23rd
September 1948 the Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Assam, which was its only Legislative Chamber. The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 28th March 1949.
The Governor of Assam, acting under section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935, reserved the Bill for the
consideration of the Governor-General.
In view of
the then impending commencement of the Constitution, the Governor-General on the 25th January 1950
returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam with the
remark that the Bill be reserved for the consideration
of the President.
On the 26th of January 1950 the
Constitution of India came into force.
Two days
later, that is to say, on the 28th January 1950, the
Governor of Assam actually received back the Bill.
The Governor of Assam then reserved the Bill for the
consideration of the President and sent the Bill to
the President.
In October 1950 the President
returned the Bill to the Governor of Assam suggesting certain alterations. The Bill, together with the
suggested amendments, was placed before the Legislative Assembly of Assam. The Legislative Assembly
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
309
considered the suggested alterations and passed the
1956
Bill suitably amended. The amended Bill thereupon
-
was again forwarded to the President and on the 27th R~a Bhair~~n;ra
July 1951 it received the assent of the President and
ara:v;~
"
became Assam Act XVIII of 1951. The Act was The State of Assam
published in the Assam Gazette of the 8th August
1951. On the 11th September 1951 the Legislative
Das C.J.
Assembly passed a Bill amending Assam Act XVIII
of 1951 in certain particulars and this Bill, having
been reserved by the Governor for the consideration
of the President, received the assent of the President
on the 25th March 1954 and became Assam Act VI of
1954. The Acts were brought into force on the 15th
April 1954 by a Notification issued by the .Assam
Government on the 9th June 1954. On the 19th July
1954 a. Notification was published in the Assam
Gazette under section 3(1) of the impugned Act
declaring that the properties therein mentioned, including the properties which formed the subjectmatter of the two suits would vest in the State free
from all encumbrances with effect from the 15th
April 1955. Two suits out of which the present
appeals arise were then filed in December 1954.
The second part of issue 1 raises the contention
that the impugned Act was not enacted according to
law. The following reasons have been urged in support of this contention.
(a) The Bill was introduced in the Assembly
without the sanction of the Governor which was required by section 299(3) of the Government of India
Act.
(b) When the Bill
was placed before
the
Governor-General for his assent and he did not assent
to it, the assent must be deemed to have been withheld. His suggestion that it be reserved for the consideration of the President was void and of no effect.
(c) The Bill was not pending in the Legislature
at the date of the commencement of the Constitution
and it could not be reserved for the assent of the
President.
(d) The Legislature functioning under the Constitution has no power to consider the amendment~
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
1956
suggested by the President or to pass the same.
. -.
(e) The Bill having been passed by the LegislaRa1a Bhairebendra
·
A
bl
d th
ft
h
·
b
d
Narayan Bhup t1ve
ssem . y an.
erea er
avmg
een reserve
v.
for the consideration of the Governor-General under
Tlw State of Assam the Government of India Act, 1935 and the GovernorGeneral not having taken any constitutional action
Das C.J.
in respect of it, as prescribed by that Act up to the
time that Act was operating, the Bill lapsed on the
repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935 and the
promulgation of the Constitution.
(f) The subsequent acts of the Governor, the
Legislative Assembly and the purported assent of the
President are all unconstitutional and void.
The reason under heading (a) above may be disposed of in a few words. The impugned .Act undoubtedly provides for the compulsory acquisition of
land and had, therefore, to comply with the requirements of section 299 of the Government of India Act,
1935, which was in force at the date of the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Assembly of the
province of Assam. Sub-section (3) of that section
provided that no Bill making provision for the transference to public ownership of any land should be
introduced in either Chamber of Federal Legislature
without the previous sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion or in a Chamber of Provincial
Legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor in his discretion. It was alleged that the previous sanction of the Governor of Assam had not
been obtained before the Bill, which eventually became the impugned Act, was introduced in the Legislative Assembly.
This allegation was controverted
and the learned Advocate-General of Assam produced
before the High Court the minutes of the official proceedings in relation to the Bill.
The Revenue Department's file No. RT 17/48dated the 21st July 1948
shows that a note was put up before "H.E.", meaning obviously His Excellency the Governor, seeking,
amongst other things, his sanction for the introduction of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris
Bill, 1948 under section 299(3) of the Government of
India Act, 1935. At the foot of that note appear the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
311
initials "A.H." over the date 21st July, 1948. It is
1956
not disputed that the initials "A.H." stand for Akbar R .
-
H
.
h
h G ·
f A
I ·
a1a Bhairebendra
ydari, who was t en t e overnor o
ssam.
t IS
Narayan BhuJ>
true that the words "sanction granted" were not
v.
endorsed on the note but there can be no doubt that The State of Assam
the initials were appended to the note by the Governor
for no other purpose than for signifying his sanction
to the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative
Assembly. Moreover under section 109 of that Act,
if there were no other defect vitiating it, the impugned
Act could not be challenged as invalid by reason only
that previous sanction was not given by the Governor
to the introduction of the Bill. In our judgment
the first reason urged in support of the contention
that the impugned Act was not enacted according to
law has no force and must be rejected.
The reasons (b) to (f) may conveniently be dealt
with together. It will be recalled that after the Bill
had been passed by the Assam Legislative Assembly
on the 28th March, 1949, it was presented to the
Governor under section 75 of the Government of India
Act, 1935. Under that Act the Governor could do one
of four things. He could in his discretion declare that
he assented in His Majesty's name to the Bill or that
he withheld assent therefrom or that he reserved the
Bill for the consideration of the Governor-General or
he could in his discretion return the Bill together
with a message requesting the Chamber or Chamhers
to reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions
thereof. In this case the Governor in his discretion
reserved the Bill for the consideration of the GovernorGeneral and forwarded the Bill to him.
Under section 76 of that Act the Governor-General could do
one of four things, namely, that he could in his discretion declare that he assented in His Majesty's name
to the Bill or that he withheld assent therefrom or
that he reserved the Bill for the signification of His
Majesty's pleasure thereon or he could, if in his discretion he thought fit, direct the Governor to return
the Bill to the Cham her or Chambers of the Provincial
Legislature together with such a message as was mentioned in the preceding section. What happened in
Das C.J.
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
19s6
this case is that, in view of the impending constituR . 8 -. b.
tional changes, the Governor-General, on the 25th
a7a haire endra J
1950
d h B'
h G
f
Narayan Bhup
anuary
, returne
t e
ill to t e overnor o
v.
Assam advising him to reserve the Bill for the conTiie State of Assam sideration of the President. While the Bill was in
transit and before it was actually received by the
Das C.J.
Governor, which he did on the 28th January 1950,
our Constitution came into force on the 26th January 1950.
Our attention is drawn to article 395 of the Constitution, whereby the Indian Independence Act, 1947
and the Government of India Act, 1935 together with
all enactments, amending or supplementing the latter
Act but not including the Abolition of Privy Council
Jurisdiction Act, 1949, were repealed.
It is pointed
out that there was no saving provision in that article
and consequently it was a total repeal of the enactments referred to therein.
Reference is made to the
well-known observations of Tindal, C. J. in Kay v.
Godwin(') and the dictum of Lord Tenterden, C. J. in
Surtees v. Ellison(9) and to Craies' Statute Law, 4th
Edition, pp. 347 to 348 and Crawford on Statutory
Construction, pp. 599 to 600, all referred to by Faz!
Ali, J. in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of
Bombay(') and it is contended that the effect of the
repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935 was to
obliterate that Act as completely as if it had never
been passed and as if it had never existed except for
the purpose of those actions commenced, prosecuted
and concluded whilstit was an existing law. The Bill
in question not having become an Act before the 26th
January 1950 the same, it is urged, must be regarded
as having been wiped out of existence by reason of
the repeal.
There might have been a good deal of
force in this con ten ti on had there been no other provision in the Constitution keeping this Bill alive.
Article 389 of the Constitution provides that a Bill
which immediately before the commencement of the
Constitution was pending in the Legislature of the
(ll (1830) 180 E.R. 1403; 6 Bing. 576.
(2) (1829) 9 B. & 0. 750, 762; 109 E.R. 278, 279.
(8) [196\) S.O.R. 228, 237 et seq,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
313
Dominion of India or in the Legislature of any Pro1956
vince or Indian State may, subject to any provisions R 1 Bh-. b d
h
h• h
b . l d d .
l
d
a a
a•re en ra
to t e contrary w ic may e me u e m ru es ma e
Narayan BhuJ>
by Parliament or the Legislature of the correspondv.
ing State under this Constitution, be continued in The State of Assam
Parliament or the Legislature of the corresponding
-
State, as the case may be, as if the proceedings taken
Das C.J.
with reference to the Bill in the Legislature of the
Dominion of India or in the Legislature of the Province or Indian State had been taken in Parliament
or in the Legislature of the corresponding State. If,
therefore, the Bill with which we are concerned was
pending in the Legislature of Assam immediately
before the commencement of the Constitution, then
clearly it was quite properly continued in the Legislature of the corresponding State.
Two questions,
therefore, arise, namely ( 1) whether at the commencement of the Constitution the Bill was pending at all
and (2)· if it was, whether it was pending in the
Legislature of Assam.
As to (1):-Section 30 of the Government of India
Act, 1935 made provision for the introduction of
Bills in the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and
section 73 provided for the introduction of Bills in
the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislature. Section 32 of the Act laid down provisions
for presentation of the Bill passed by the Federal
Legislative Chambers to the Governor-General and
section 75 for the presentation of the Bill passed by
the Provincial Legislative Chamber or Chambers to
the Governor. Broadly speaking it may be said that
a Bill begins to pend with its introduction in the
Legislative Chamber and it ceases to pend-(a) when
it lapses under section 73(4) or (b) when the Governor declares that he assents in his Majesty's name to
the Bill in which case the Bill ripens into an Act or
( c) when the Governor declares that he withholds his
assent therefrom, in which case the Bill falls through
or (d) when being reserved by the Governor for the
consideration of the Governor-General, the GovernorGeneral acting under section 76 declares that he assents
in HisMajesty's name to the Bill, in which case also
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
the Bill becomes an Act or (e) when, having been so
R . 8~
b
reserved by the Governor, the Governor-General dei:'aray::·s~:~· clares that he withholds his assent therefrom, in which
v.
case again the Bill falls through or (f) when the Bill
:rh• State of Assam having been reserved by the Governor-General for
Das C.J.
the signification of His Majesty's pleasure thereon
under section 76(1), tbe Governor under section 76(2)
makes known by public notification that His Majesty
had assented thereto, in which case again the Bill
becomes an Act and lastly (g) when no such notification is issued by the Governor within twelve months
from the date on which it was presented to the Governor, in which event also the Bill comes to an end.
In short a Bill may be said to be pending as long as
it does not lapse or it does not become an Act by receiving the assent by the appropriate authority or is
not terminated by the withholding of assent by such
appropriate authority. The contention of the appellant is that when the Bill under consideration had
been, under section 76, reserved by the Governor
for the consideration of the Governor-General and
sent to the Governor-General and the latter did
not declare his ·assent in the name of His Majesty
to the Bill but sent it back to the Governor, the
Governor-General must be deemed to have withheld
his assent from the Bill. As already stated, under
section 76, the Governor-General could have declared
that he assented in the name of His Majesty to the Bill
or that he withheld his assent therefrom, or that he
reserved the Bill for the signification of His Majesty's
pleasure or he could have returned it to the Governor
for being presented to the Chamber for reconsideration but he could not do anything else. Therefore, his act of returning the Bill to the Governor
with the suggestion to place it before the President was, it is urged, wholly unauthorised and
amounted to his withholding his assent from the Bill.
We are unable to accept this argument a.ssound. The
Governor-General knew that if he declared that he
withheld his assent then the Bill would come to a
termination and no further step could be taken in
relation to that Bill. Therefore, when the Governor-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
315
General returned the Bill to the Governor with the
1956
suggestion that the same Bill be reserved for the con- R . Bh-:- b d
'd
t'
f th p
'd t th
G
G
l a1a
aire en ra
s1 era 10n o
e
res1 en ,
e
overnor- enera
Narayan BhuJ>
quite clearly evinced an intention that the Bill should
v.
remain alive, for otherwise there could be no question The State of Assam
of further reservation of the same Bill for the consideration of the President.
The very suggestion of
the further reservation of the Bill for the consideration of the President makes it impossible for us
to hold, inferentially or fictionally, as we are asked
to do, that the Governor-General had withheld his
assent. It is clear on the facts that the GovernorGeneral neither assented to, nor withheld his assent
from, the Bill. His action may have been unconstitutional, but it cannot be regarded as amounting to
a declaration that he was withholding his assent from
the Bill, for the assenting to, or the withholding of
assent from a Bill postulates a conscious and positive
declaration that the assent is so given or withheld.
The suggestion that the Bill be reserved for the consideration of the President clearly militates against the
view that the Governor-General had, positively or
even tacitly, w·ithheld his assent from the Bill. The
very suggestion indicates that the Governor-General
intended that the Bill should remain pending so that
it could be reserved for the consideration of the President and receive his assent or dissent. In the premises it cannot be held that the Bill ceased to be
pending by reason of the assent of the GovernorGeneral having been withheld from it.
In our view,
in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Bill
was pending at the date when our Constitution came
into force.
As to (2):-Learned counsel for the appellant then
contends that even if the Bill was pending, it was
certainly not pending before the Legislature of
Assam.
What, then, was the Legislature of the Province of Assam immediately before the commencement of our Constitution? This involves a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Government of
India Act, 1935. The Government of India Act, 1935
was a statute passed by the British Parliament. The
Das C.J.
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
1956
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
R . 8 -:- b
and Northern Ireland consists of the Sovereign and
a1a ha.re endra h
h
E
f h
R
1
1
h L
Narayan Bhup
t e t ree
states o t e
ea m, name y, t e
ords
v.
Spiritual and the Lords Temporal, who sit together
The State of Assam iI1 the House of Lords and the elected representatives
of the people, who sit in the House of Commons.
Das C.J.
When a Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament
or is passed by the House of Commons in the manner
provided by Parliament Act, 1911, it becomes ready
to receive the Royal assent. No Bill passed by both
Houses of Parliam&nt or in the last mentioned case
by the House of Commons can become law and be entered in the Statute Book without the Royal assent.
It is thus clear that, according to British Constitutional theory, the Sovereign is an integral part of
Parliament. This notion is reflected in sections 17,
55 and 56 of the British North America Act, with
regard to the Canadian Parliament and sections 69,
71 and 90 of the same Act with regard to the Provincial Legislatures of that Dominion. The same idea
was adopted in the Government of India Act, 1935.
Section 18 of this Act, as it originally stood, provided
for a Federal Legislature consisting of His Majesty
represented by the Governor-General and two Chambers to be known respectively as the Council of States
and the House of Assembly. Section 60 provided
for a Legislature for every Province consisting
of His Majesty represented by the Governor and in
certain Provinces two Chambers and in other Provinces one Chamber. As already stated the Province
of Assam had only one Chamber, the Legislative
Assembly. The legislative procedure of the Chambers
of the Federal Legislature was regulated by section
30 and of the Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial
Legislatures by section 73 of the Government of India
Act, 1935. Procedure subsequent to the passing
of the Bill by the Legislative Chamber or Chambers
was governed by section 32 with regard to Bills passed
by the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and by
sections 75 and 76 with regard to those passed by the
Chamber or Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures.
It is true that section 18 of the Government of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
317
India Act, 1935 was adapted. as contemplated by
1956
section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, but
. 8 -.
h
d
.
f
.
60 f h G
Ra1a ha•rebendra
t ere was no a aptat10n o sect10n
o t e
overnNarayan Bhup
ment of India Act, 1935 which dealt with the
v.
Provincial Legislature. From the language used in The State of Assam
section 18, as it stood before its adaptation and in
section 60, it is quite clear that it was His Majesty
himself, who was really a constituent part of the
Legislatures, Federal and Provincial, and that he was
represented by the Governor-General in relation to
the Federal Legislature and by the Governor in the
case of the Provincial Legislatures. His Majesty being, thus, an integral part of the Legislature, Federal
and Provincial, when a Bill passed by the Chambers
of the Federal Legislature or by the Chamber or
Chambers of Provincial Legislatures, was presented
to the Governor-General or the Governor under section 32 or sections 75 and 76 of that Act, the Legislative process went on and unless and until assent
was given or withheld by the Governor-General or
the Governor in the name of His Majesty there could
be no escape from the position that in law and in
reality the Bill was pending before His Majesty, for
the Governor-General or the Governor was, under
that Act, merely the agent representing His Majesty,
who was an integral part of the Legislature. This
was made clear by the provision that when the
Gevernor-General or the Governor declared that he
assented or that he withheld his assent, such declaration had to be made in the name of His Majesty.
Therefore, whether the Bill was in the hands of the
Governor or in the hands of the Governor-General or
was in transit between the one and the other on either
way, it must be taken to have been pending before
His Majesty and, therefore, before the Legislature.
The declaration giving or withholding assent was undoubtedly a continuation of the legislative process
and until such declaration was made by the appropriate agency in the name of His Majesty obviously
the Bill was pending and where, in law and in reality,
could it at that stage be pending except before His
Majesty as an integral part of the Legislature? Such
Das C.J.
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956)
1956
being the position under article 389 read with the reR .
-.
b
levant provisions of the Government of India Act,
a1aBhaore endra ·
h
d •t th" B"Jj
Jd
J b
Narayan Bhup as we appre en
I ,
IS
1 cou
proper y
e conv.
tinuedin the Legislature of Assam after the commenceTh• State of Assam ment of our Constitution.
Under article 168 of
Das C.J.
our Constitution every State has a Legislature consisting of the Governor and in certain States two
Houses and in other States, which include Assam, one
House. The Bill having been passed by the Legislative Assembly of Assam before the commencement of
the Constitution, all that was required to be done
under the Constitution was to continue the legislative
process-under article 200. It was, therefore, competent for the Governor of Assam to reserve the Bill for
the consideration of the President and it was in order
for the President, under article 201, to direct the
Governor to return the Bill to the Legislative
Assembly of the State together with the requisite
message and it was quite proper for the Legislative
Assembly, when the Bill was so returned, to consider
it accordingly. It follows, therefore, that when the
Bill was again passed by the Legislative Assembly of
Assam, it was proper to represent the Bill to the
President for his consideration and it was open to
the President to give his assent to the amended Bill,
as he, in fact, did.
Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on article 31(4) and to a passage in the Judgment of this court in Visweshwar Rao v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh(') and it is contended that the word
"Legislature'', which occurs both in article 31(4) and
article 389 means only the Chamber or Chambers of
the Legislature and not the Governor or the Governor-General. We need not discuss the larger question as to the correct interpretation of the word
"Legislature" as occurring in article 31(4) and suffice
it to say that the very passage relied on by learned
counsel makes it quite clear that the word "Legislature" is used in different senses in different articles
and may be in different senses in different places in
the same article and its meaning has to be ascertained
(1) [1952] S.C.R. 1020, 103,.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
319
1956
keeping in view the subject or the context. In Tiew
of the provisions of sections 18, 30 and 32 and sec-
.
;
7
d 76 f h
G
f J d"
Raja Bhairebe11dra
t10ns 60, 73, 5 an
o t e
overnment o
n Ia
Narayan Bhu:P
Act, 1935 to which reference has been made, we are
v.
clearly of opinion that the word "Legislature" has The state of Assam
been used in article 389 in the larger sense, namely,
comprising all the units that were concerned in the
entire legislative process and included His Majesty
represented by the Governor-General or the Governor,
as the case might be.
We find no reason to think
that our Constitution intended only to keep alive
the Bills which were actually pending before the
Legislative Chamber or Chambers but not those which
having been passed by the Legislative Chamber or
Chambers had been presented to the Governor-General or the Governor and were undergoing the final
legislative process and awaiting the assent of His
Majesty represented by the Governor-General or Governor, as the case might be.
We are, therefore, of
opinion, although for different reasons, that the High
Court properly answered the first part of issue (1).
Re. issue (2):-The Act having been properly
passed by the Legislature of Assam, the Government
of Assam was well within their rights under section
3 of the Act to declare that the estates of the tenure
holders specified in the Notification vested in the
State free from all encumbrances. There is no suggestion that the properties of Sm. Beda Bala Devi, the
plaintiff in 'I'. S. No. 3 of 1955, were not "estates"
within the meaning of the Act and accordingly the
High Court has correctly decided this issue in favour
of the State, so far as that plaintiff is concerned. The
Raja, the plaintiff in T. S. No.' 1 of 1955, however,
raised the contention that his properties were not
"estates" as defined in the Act and that being the
subject matter of issue ( 4), this aspect of issue (2)
was also left open until the decision of issue (4). As
the High Court has sent down the suit to the court
of Subordi~ate Judge for disposal and determination
of other issues, the final answer to issue (2), as regards
the Raja, will depend on the determination of issue
(4) and must until then be kept open.
~2
Das C.J.
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
Re. issue (3):-The Act and its amendments are
-
challenged on the ground that they infringe the fundaR«f;:,~';.:'!~:J,ra mental rights of the plaintiff under article 31 (2) and
v.
article 14 of the Constitution. If, however, the legisThe State of Assam lation is protected under article 31-A of the Constitution then the question of infringement of fundaDas C.J.
mental rights of the plaintiff under articles 31 (2) and
14willnot arise. Article 31(4) protects an Act falling
within it only against the contravention of the provisions of clause (2) of that article but not of those of
article 14. Article 31-A, however, protects an Act
falling within it even if it is inconsistent with or
takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred
by the provisions of Part III. It is obvious, therefore, that article 31-A gives greater and wider protection than does article 31(4).