Retrospective validation of mineral levy upheld where Parliament adopted earlier invalid provisions through deeming and incorporation.

Parliament, acting within its legislative competence over mines and minerals, could retrospectively validate earlier invalid State provisions by adopting their substance through incorporation and deeming language. The validating enactment was treated as a permissible Parliamentary re-enactment, not an attempt to confer competence on an incompetent Legislature. It also effectively revived the levy of rents and royalties, validated actions taken under the impugned provisions, saved amounts already realised, and barred refund claims except for sums paid in excess of what was due. Delegated Rule 20(2) was likewise capable of validation. The challenge to the validating legislation therefore failed and the retrospective levy remained operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Parliament could retrospectively validate provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 that had earlier been held invalid, by enacting a validating law adopting those provisions by reference; (ii) whether the validating law effectively revived the levy of rents and royalties and the action taken under the impugned provisions.

Issue (i): Whether Parliament could retrospectively validate provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 that had earlier been held invalid, by enacting a validating law adopting those provisions by reference.

Analysis: The legislative field relating to mines and minerals had been brought within Parliamentary control. Once Parliament was competent on the subject, it could enact a law for the topic itself and could use incorporation or reference as a drafting device. The earlier invalidity of the State provision did not prevent Parliament from adopting the substance of those provisions into a Central validating enactment. The controlling distinction was between an impermissible attempt by Parliament to confer competence on a State Legislature and a permissible Parliamentary re-enactment or adoption of the relevant provisions for a matter within its own competence. The validating measure was therefore not invalid merely because it used deeming and referential language.

Conclusion: The validating enactment was within Parliamentary competence and was capable of retrospectively adopting the earlier provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether the validating law effectively revived the levy of rents and royalties and the action taken under the impugned provisions.

Analysis: The validating enactment expressly declared the specified provisions and the actions taken under them to be valid as if enacted by Parliament and as if the validating section had been in force at all material times. It also saved the rents and royalties realised and barred refund proceedings, while preserving claims for amounts paid in excess of what was due. The Court treated the wording as sufficient to carry out the evident legislative purpose of retroactive validation, notwithstanding imperfections in drafting. Rule 20(2), having been made by the State Government as delegate under the central statute, was also capable of validation by Parliament even though it had earlier been ultra vires the delegation.

Conclusion: The validating law effectively revived the levy and sustained the action taken under the impugned provisions.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validating legislation failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the retrospective levy and related action in force.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature competent to legislate on a subject may validly use incorporation and retrospective deeming language to cure prior invalidity and validate earlier actions, provided it is legislating for a field within its own competence and is not attempting to confer competence on an incompetent Legislature.

---