Supreme Court of India

DHARAMDEOversusBIJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 883
Decided: 12 December 1995
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

The Act is constitutionally valid; it lies within State legislative competence, does not contravene Article 14, and its procedural provisions are permissible as a supplemental scheme to the CPC.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972, which sought to eliminate letter‑patent appeals in land‑reform matters. Petitioners contended that the Act exceeded State legislative competence, violated Article 14’s equality guarantee, and conflicted with the Code of Civil Procedure by removing a fair‑trial mechanism. The Court held that land‑reform matters fall within Schedule 7, List II, items 14 and 18 of the Constitution, making the Act intra‑state competence. It found no discriminatory effect, so Article 14 was not breached. The procedural scheme was deemed supplemental to the CPC and a permissible legislative policy to curb multiplicity of appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972 is within the legislative competence of the State legislature under Schedule 7, List II, items 14 and 18.
Whether the Act violates the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the procedure prescribed in the Act is inconsistent with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Whether the abolition of the Letter Patent Appeal under the Act infringes the right to a fair hearing.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Schedule 7, List II, items 14 and 18

Subjects

legislative competenceState ListSchedule 7Article 14equality before lawCode of Civil Proceduresummary procedureabolition of letter patent appealland reformconstitutional challenge

Judgment

DHARAMDEO A
v.
BIJARAT AND ORS.

DECEMBER 12, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters patent Appeals) (Amendment)
Act, 1972-S.2-Legislative compet~nce-Challenged-Whether impugned Act
is within legislative competehce of State legislatu~eld, Yes-There is no
discrimination violating Art. i4 of Constitution of lndia,--i'rocedure prescribed C
is only supplemental or residual to main purpose of the Act.

The validity of the Ordinance was challenged on the ground of
legislative competency, as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was
urged that the procedure prescribed is in violation of the Code ~f Civil I
Procedure; that the trial provided under the Act is unjust, unreasonable D
f and unfair and that it offends the right to fair hearing and the CPC, as
the Letter Patent Appeal was taken away under the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Since It is a matter relating to land reform and land, it
E
Is covered by Schedule 7, List II, Item Nos. 14 and 18. Therefore, the
impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature.
Since the legislature is competent to enact the law, all the agricultural
holdings covered under the Act are equally regulated thereunder. There-
fore, there is no discrimination violating Art. 14. [622·El F
1.2. The procedure prescribed in the Act is only supplemental or
residual to the main purpose of the Act. Civil Procedure Code is in the
Concurrent List. The act received assent of the President. The legislature,
therefore, is competent to provide procedure in the implementation of the
provisions of the Act. The summary procedure having been prescribed for G
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. [622-G·Hl H
621
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 1.3. 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 providing
for only one appeal to the High Court before a single Judge against the
orders of the Board of Revenue or consolidation authority etc. [623-B]

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 255 of
1976.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.1973 of the Allahabad
High Court in Special Appeal No. 128 of 1973.
c Pramod Swamp for the Appellants.

Raj Kr. Gupta, H.P. Sharma and Rajesh for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
We 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
E 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.
F 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.
The legislature, therefore, is competent to provide procedure in the im-
plementation of the provisions of the Act. Next submission is that the trial
G 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
H suits. The time consuming process was sought to be curtailed and fair
DHARAMDEO v. BUARAT 623

procedure was streamlined. As one of its facets it is argued that the Letter A
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 B
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 extenso and upheld the abolition of the special appeal, we are
in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the Full Bench.

We do not find any justification for interference. The appeal is
c
accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.A. Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "legislative competence"Sign in to search