Article 31A protection upheld for land reform provision; confirmation proviso held prospective and new objection rejected on appeal.

Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was treated as an ancillary part of the land reform scheme, designed to prevent transfers made in anticipation of the Act and to support acquisition or extinction of estate rights; it was therefore held protected by Article 31A and immune from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31. The 1959 amendment inserting a second proviso requiring State Government confirmation was construed as prospective only, because the text did not clearly give it retrospective effect and a retrospective reading would create inconsistency and redundancy. A plea that the Collector had not complied with inquiry and sanction requirements could not be raised for the first time in appeal, as it had not been specifically pleaded or argued earlier.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was protected by Article 31A of the Constitution and therefore immune from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31; (ii) Whether the second proviso inserted by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 requiring confirmation by the State Government applied retrospectively to orders made by the Collector before the amendment; (iii) Whether the respondent could raise for the first time in appeal the plea that the Collector had not complied with the statutory inquiry and sanction requirements.

Issue (i): Whether section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was protected by Article 31A of the Constitution and therefore immune from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Analysis: Section 4(h) was treated as an integral and ancillary part of the land reform scheme. Its object was to prevent transfers made in anticipation of the Act and to ensure effective implementation of the statutory policy. A cancellation under that provision would result in the land vesting in the State and in the extinction or modification of rights in an estate. The provision was therefore not to be viewed in isolation, but as part of legislation dealing with acquisition and extinguishment of estate rights.

Conclusion: Section 4(h) was held to be protected by Article 31A and the constitutional challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the second proviso inserted by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 requiring confirmation by the State Government applied retrospectively to orders made by the Collector before the amendment.

Analysis: The amendment clauses were construed by comparing the language used for omission and insertion. The retrospective effect was expressly attached to some changes, while the proviso requiring confirmation was not expressed in retrospective terms. Construing the proviso retrospectively would create inconsistency with the omission of the previous sanction requirement and produce redundancy and practical anomalies. The proper reading was that the pre-amendment sanction requirement governed earlier orders, while the confirmation requirement applied only to orders made after the amendment.

Conclusion: The proviso requiring confirmation by the State Government was held to be prospective and not applicable to the Collector's earlier order.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent could raise for the first time in appeal the plea that the Collector had not complied with the statutory inquiry and sanction requirements.

Analysis: The record showed no specific pleading in the writ petition that the inquiry had not been held or that sanction had not been obtained, and the point had not been urged before the High Court. In those circumstances, it was not appropriate to permit the issue to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The plea was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory power failed, the amendment was construed prospectively as to the new confirmation requirement, and the High Court's order was set aside, leaving the Collector's action undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An ancillary provision enacted to make a land reform statute effective is protected by Article 31A when it operates as part of a scheme for acquisition or extinction of estate rights, and an amending proviso will not be given retrospective effect unless the legislative language clearly so provides.

---