Bachan Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Mr. Keshow Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Dharmesh Kr. Shrivastava, Advocate. : For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishor AAG 1 Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG 1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.17068 of 2012 (4) dt.01-10-2012 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 01-10-2012 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by some 15 landholders of village- Chakki, P.S.- Barahmpur, District-Buxar to challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20 and 23 of the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011 [Bihar Act 24, 2011] (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Learned counsel Mr. Keshow Shrivastava has appeared for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners challenge not only the above referred sections but also Section 6 of the Act.

Mr. Shrivastava has read over the impugned provisions before us. He has submitted that the aforesaid provisions will lead to arbitrary exercise of power by the concerned authority. The said provisions are, therefore, unconstitutional as much as they abrogate the fundamental rights of the petitioners. We are unable to agree with Mr. Shrivastava. The impugned provisions set out a procedure. The Act has been enacted by the Legislature with an avowed object to make survey and demarcation of land by employing modern methods and technology and to develop a digital land records. The impugned Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 lay down the procedure for survey of the land under the Act. Section 11 thereof provides for “final publication of the records of rights”. Section 20 thereof gives the provisions of the Act, “overriding effect over any other Act”. Section 23 thereof “bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the disputes under the Act”.

We see no merit in the challenge to the aforesaid provisions. At first, there cannot be a challenge to the provisions of an enactment on the ground that the said provisions are in 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.17068 of 2012 (4) dt.01-10-2012 contravention of some other provisions of the same enactment. Second, there is no vested right to the procedure. A change in the procedure is not amenable to challenge. Third, legislative enactment cannot be set aside on the ground that it may lead to arbitrary action. If the action is arbitrary the same can be challenged before a court of law or before any other statutory forum. We may also add that the learned counsel Mr. Shrivastava has failed to demonstrate before us that any of the fundamental rights of the writ petitioners is abrogated on account of the impugned provisions. The challenge is frivolous. Petition is dismissed in limine. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/-