Vs. Bijarat & Ors  INSC 831 (12 December 1995)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 SCC (2) 313 1995 SCALE (7)351
O R D
have perused the order of the High Court dated November 24, 1975. The only question raised relates to the validity of the
Ordinance which has already been upheld by the Full Bench of that Court. It was
argued relating to legislative competency. Since it is a matter relating to
land reform and land, it is covered by Schedule 7, List II, item Nos.14 and 18.
As a result, the impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the State
legislature. It is then contended that it is violative of Art.14. We find no
force in the contention. Since the legislature is competent to enact the law,
all the agricultural holdings covered under the Act are equally regulated thereunder.
Therefore, there is no discrimination violating Art.14. It is next urged that
the procedure prescribed is in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure, a
Central Act. We find no force in the contention. The procedure is only
supplemental or residual to the main purpose of the Act. CPC is in the
Concurrent List. The Act received assent of the President.
legislature, therefore, is competent to provide procedure in the implementation
of the provisions of the Act. Next submission is that the trial provided under
the Act is unjust, unreasonable and unfair. We find that the summary procedure
having been prescribed for early disposal of these cases, causes minimum inconvenience
to the litigants, which is just and fair procedure. It is, therefore,
reasonable and fair to the parties. Elaborate procedure like trial need not
necessarily be provided as is in vogue in civil suits. The time consuming
process was sought to be curtailed and fair procedure was streamlined.
of its facets it is argued that the Letter Patent Appeal was taken away under
the Act and that, therefore, it offends the right to fair hearing and the CPC.
We find no force in the contention. Creation of the hierarchy of the court is
one of legislative policy. With a view to curtail multiplicity of appeals, the
legislature stepped in and saved structural appeals. The legislature limited
the remedy by providing for only one appeal to the High Court before a learned
single Judge against the orders of the Board of Revenue or consolidation
authority etc. Since that question was fully canvassed before the Full Bench,
which has considered the same in extension and upheld the abolition of the
special appeal, we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the
not find any justification for interference. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.