Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DHARAMDEO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BIJARAT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (2) 313 1995 SCALE (7)351
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 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.
The 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.
As one 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 Full Bench.
We do not find any justification for interference. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.