{"id":96682,"date":"1953-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953"},"modified":"2018-02-12T12:13:44","modified_gmt":"2018-02-12T06:43:44","slug":"ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953","title":{"rendered":"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 215, \t\t 1953 SCR 1129<\/div>\n
Author: M P Sastri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM PRASAD NARAYAN SAHI AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/02\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  215\t\t  1953 SCR 1129\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1956 SC 479\t (14,26)\n F\t    1958 SC 538\t (12)\n R\t    1961 SC1570\t (14)\n R\t    1962 SC1371\t (78)\n R\t    1963 SC 222\t (51)\n R\t    1974 SC1044\t (14)\n RF\t    1980 SC1789\t (36)\n RF\t    1983 SC   1\t (167)\n RF\t    1986 SC 872\t (82)\n RF\t    1992 SC1277\t (34,85,96)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of India, 1950, arts. 13,14-Sathi Lands  (Res-\ntoration)  Act, 1950-Law declaring settlement of  land\twith\nparticular    individual    void-Validity-Infringement\t  of\nfundamental   right  to\t equal\tprotection  of\t the   laws-\nDiscrimination-presumption of reasonableness.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n The Court of Wards granted to the appellants a large area of\n land  belonging to the Bettiah Raj which was then under  the\n management  of the Court of Wards, on the recommendation  of\n the Board of Revenue, at half the usual rates.\t A few\tyears\n later, the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress\n expressed  the opinion that the settlement of the lands  was\n against public interest, and in 1950, the Bihar  Legislature\n passed\t an  Act called the Sathi  Lands  (Restoration)\t Act,\n 1950,\t which\t declared  that,   notwithstanding   anything\n contained  in\tany  law  for the time\tbeing  in  force  the\n settlement granted to the appellants shall be null and\t void\n and  that  no party to the settlement or his  successors  in\n interest  shall  be  deemed to have acquired  any  right  or\n incurred   any\t liability  thereunder,\t and  empowered\t  the\n Collector to eject the appellants if they refused to restore\n the  lands.   The  appellants, alleging  that\tthe  Act  was\n unconstitutional,   applied   under  article  226   of\t  the\n Constitution  for  a writ of mandamus against the  State  of\n Bihar\trestraining it from taking any action under the\t Act.\n It  was found that there were several other  settlements  of\n lands belonging to the Bettiah Raj on similar terms  against\n which the Government had taken no action:\n     Held,  that the dispute between the appellants  and  the\n State\twas  really  a private dispute and  a  matter  to  be\n determined by a judicial tribunal in accordance with the law\n applicable  to\t the case, and, as the\tLegislature  had,  in\n passing  the impugned enactment singled out  the  appellants\n and deprived them of their right to\n 1130\n have  this  dispute adjudicated upon by a  duly  constituted\n Court,\t the enactment contravened the provisions of  article\n 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every citizen the\n equal protection of the laws, and was void.\n   Legislation which singles out a particular individual from\n his  fellow subjects and visits him with a disability\twhich\n is  not imposed upon the others and against which  even  the\n right of complaint is taken away is highly discriminatory.\n    Though   the   presumption\t is   in   favour   of\t  the\n constitutionality  of a legislative enactment and it has  to\n be  presumed  that a Legislature understands  and  correctly\n appreciates  the  needs of its own people, yet when  on  the\n face of a statute there is no classification at all, and  no\n attempt has been made to select any individual or group with\n reference to any differentiating attribute peculiar to\t that\n individual  or\t group\tand not\t possessed  by\tothers,\t this\n presumption is of little or no assistance to the State.\n     Ameerunnissa  Begum v. Mahboob Begum<\/a> [1953]  S.C.R.  404\n and  Gulf  of\tColorado etc.  Co. v. Ellis  [165  U.S.\t 150]\n referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 59  of
\n1952.\n<\/p>\n
  Appeal  from\tthe Judgment and Order\tdated  3rd  January,
\n1952,  of the High Court of Judicature at  Patna  (Ramaswami
\nand  Sarjoo Prosad JJ). in an application under article\t 226
\nof  the\t Constitution registered as  Miscellaneous  Judicial
\nCase No. 204 of 1950.\n<\/p>\n
  Original  Petition No. 20 of 1952 under article 32 of\t the
\nConstitution was also heard along with this appea.
\n  P. R. Das (B.\t Sen, with him) for the appellants.
\n    M.\t  C.  Setalvad,\t Attorney-General  for\tIndia,\t and
\nMahabir\t Prasad,  Advocate-General of Bihar (G.\t  N.  Joshi,
\nwith them) for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
   1953.   February  20.  The court  delivered\tjudgment  as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
    PATANJALI SASTRI C. J.-I concur in the judgment which my
\nlearned brother Mukherjea is about to deliver, but I wish to
\nadd  a\tfew words in view of  the  important  constitutional
\nissue involved.\n<\/p>\n
   The\t facts\tare  simple.   The  appellants\tobtained   a
\nsettlement of about 200 bikhas of land in a village known as
\nSathi Farm in Bettiah Estate, in Bihar,
\n1131<\/span>
\nthen and ever since in the management of the Court of  Wards
\non behalf of the disqualified proprietress who is the second
\nrespondent  in this appeal.  The lands were settled  at\t the
\nprevailing  rate of rent but the salami or  premium  payable
\nwas  fixed  at half the usual rate as a\t concession  to\t the
\nappellants  who\t are  said to be distant  relations  of\t the
\nproprietress.\tThe appellants paid the salami\tand  entered
\ninto possession of the lands on the 2nd November, 1946, and’
\nhave  since  been paying the rents regularly.  On  the\t13th
\nJune,  1950, the Bihar Legislature passed an Act called\t the
\nSathi  Lands (Restoration) Act, 1950.  The genesis  of\tthis
\nlegislation is thus explained in the counter-affidavit filed
\non  behalf  of\tthe State of  Bihar,  the  first  respondent
\nherein.\n<\/p>\n
Report\tagainst\t the  settlement of  these  lands  with\t the
\npetitioners  as\t well as some other lands to  Sri  Prajapati
\nMishra\tand the unlawful manner in which  these\t settlements
\nwere brought about, was carried to the Working Committee  of
\nthe Indian National Congress, which body, after making\tsuch
\nenquiry\t as it thought fit, came to the conclusion that\t the
\nsettlement of these lands with the petitioners was  contrary
\nto  the provisions of law and public policy and\t recommended
\nthat steps should be to taken by the State of Bihar to\thave
\nthese  lands restored to the Bettiah Estate.   In  pursuance
\nthereof\t a  request was made to the petitioners and  to\t the
\nsaid Prajapati Mishra to return the lands to Bettiah Estate.
\nWhile  Sri Prajapati Mishra returned the land  settled\twith
\nhim, the petitioners refused to do so.\n<\/p>\n
The  Statement\tof Objects and Reasons of  the\tSathi  Lands
\n(Restoration) Bill runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
“As  it has been held that the settlement of Sathi lands  in
\nthe District of Champaran under the Court of Wards with\t Sri
\nRam  Prasad Narayan Sahi and Shri Ram Rekha  Prasad  Narayan
\nSahi is contrary to the provisions of the law and as Sri Ram
\nPrasad\tNarayan\t Sahi and Sri Ram Rekha\t Narayan  Sahi\thave
\nrefused\t  to  return  the  lands  to  the  Bettiah   Estate,
\nGovernment
\n1132<\/span>
\nhave  decided to enact a law to restore these lands  to\t the
\nBettiah Estate.”\n<\/p>\n
   The\timpugned  Act consists of three\t sections.   Section
\n2(1)  declares that “notwithstanding anything  contained  in
\nany  law  for  the time being  in  force”‘,  the  settlement
\nobtained by the appellants is “null and void”, and that\t “no
\nparty  to the settlement or his successor in interest  shall
\nbe  deemed  to\thave  acquired any  right  or  incurred\t any
\nliability  thereunder”.\t Sub-section (2) provides  that\t the
\nappellants  and\t their successors in  interest\t“shall\tquit
\npossession of the said land from the date of commencement of
\nthis  Act  and\tif  they fail to do  so,  the  Collector  of
\nChamparan  shall  eject them and restore the  lands  to\t the
\npossession  of\tthe Bettiah Wards Estate”.   Subsection\t (3)
\nprovides  for the refund of the amount of salami  money\t and
\nthe  cost  of  improvement, if any, to the  lessees  by\t the
\nestate on restoration to it of the lands in question.
\n In the “case” lodged in this court for the State of  Bihar,
\nthe  legislation is sought to be justified and its  validity
\nmaintained on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
” It is well settled that a Legislature with plenary  powers
\nso long as it enacts law, within the ambit of its powers, is
\ncompetent  to enact a law which may be applicable  generally
\nto  society  or to an individual or a class  of\t individuals
\nonly … It is submitted that grants of the lands  belonging
\nto  the\t Bettiah Estate made by the Court of Wards  were  of
\ndoubtful  validity; hence they have been dealt with  by\t the
\nimpugned  Act  …  No\tevidence has  been  adduced  by\t the
\nappellants,  except  a bare allegation, which has  not\tbeen
\nsubstantiated, that about 2000 acres of land were settled to
\nshow that persons in similar circumstances with whom similar
\nsettlements  were  made, were treated  differently.   It  is
\nsubmitted  that\t in  the context the  impugned\tAct,  has  a
\nreasonable basis of classification.”\n<\/p>\n
The decision of the majority of this Court in Chiran v.\t The
\nUnion\tof  India(1)  is  relied  on  in  suport  of   these
\ncontentions, In that case, however, the
\n (1) [1950] S.C.R. 869,
\n1133<\/span>
\nmajority felt justified in upholding the legislation, though
\nit  adversely  affected\t the  rights  and  interest  of\t the
\nshareholders  of a particular joint stock  company,  because
\nthe  mismanagement  of the company’s  affairs  prejudicially
\naffected the production of an essential commodity and caused
\nserious\t unemployment  amongst a section of  the  community.
\nMr.  Justice  Das  and I took  the  ‘view  that\t legislation
\ndirected  against a particular named person  or\t corporation
\nwas obviously discriminatory and could not  constitutionally
\nbe  justified  even  if such legislation  resulted  in\tsome
\nbenefit\t to  the  public.   In a  system  of  government  by
\npolitical parties, I was apprehensive of the danger inherent
\nin special enactments which deprive particular named persons
\nof their liberty or property because the Legislature  thinks
\nthem  guilty  of  misconduct, and I said  in  my  dissenting
\nopinion:\n<\/p>\n
   “Legislation based upon mismanagement or other misconduct
\nas  the\t differentia  and made\tapplicable  to\ta  specified
\nindividual  or\tcorporate body is not far removed  from\t the
\nnotorious  parliamentary  procedure  formerly  employed\t  in
\nBritain of punishing individual delinquents by passing bills
\nof  attainder,\tand  should not, I  think  receive  judicial
\nencouragement.”\n<\/p>\n
  My  apprehensions have come true.  Recently we had  before
\nus   a\tcase  from  Hyderabad  (Civil  Appeal  ,No.  63\t  of
\n1952Ameerunnissa  Begum\t v. Mahboob Begum)’<\/a> where  the\tduly
\nconstituted  legislative authority of that State  intervened
\nin a succession dispute between two sets of rival  claimants
\nto  the\t estate of a deceased person and ” dismissed  ”\t the
\nclaim  of the one and adjudged the Property to the other  by
\nmaking a special ” law ” to that effect.  And now comes this
\ncase  from  Bihar  of  an  essentially\tsimilar\t type.\t The
\nappellants  assert title to certain lands in Bettiah  Estate
\nunder  a  settlement  which  they  claim  to  have  lawfully
\nobtained from the Court of Wards, while it is now alleged on
\nbehalf\tof  the Estate that the settlement was not  for\t the
\nbenefit of the Estate and was contrary to law, as the  Court
\nof Wards did not then ” apply its
\n(1)  Since reported as [1953] S.C.R 404
\n147<\/span>
\n1134<\/span>
\nmind  ” to that question.  This is purely a dispute  between
\nprivate\t parties  and  a matter for  determination  by\tduly
\nconstituted courts to which is entrusted, in every free\t and
\ncivilised society, the important function of adjudicating on
\ndisputed legal rights, after observing the well\t established
\nprocedural  safeguards which include the right to be  heard,
\nthe  right to produce witnesses and so forth.  This  is\t the
\nprotection which the law guarantees equally to all  persons,
\nand    our Constitution prohibits by article 14 every  State
\nfrom  denying  such protection to  anyone.   The  appellants
\nbefore\tus  have been denied this protection.\tA  political
\nOrganization of the party in power decides after making such
\nenquiry\t as it thought fit, that the settlement in  question
\nwas ” contrary to the provisions of law and public policy  ”
\nand  the State Legislature, basing itself on such  decision,
\npurports  to  declare the settlement ” null and void  ”\t and
\ndirects\t the eviction of the appellants and the\t restoration
\nof  the\t lands to the Estate.  The reasons  given  for\tthis
\nextraordinary  procedure  are indeed  remarkable  for  their
\ndisturbing  implications.   It\tis  said  that\t“there\t was
\nagitation amongst the tenants of the locality and opposition
\non  the part of persons living in the locality\tagainst\t the
\nappellants’  possession of the lands which led to breach  of
\nthe  peace  and institution of criminal cases  “.  Whenever,
\nthen,  a section of the people in a locality, in  ‘assertion
\nof an adverse claim, disturb a person in the quiet enjoyment
\nof  his property, the Bihar Government would seem  to  think
\nthat  it  is  not necessary for the police  to\tstep  in  to
\nprotect\t him  in his enjoyment until he is  evicted  in\t due
\ncourse of law, but the Legislature could intervene by making
\na  ”  law  ”  to  oust\tthe  person  from  his\t possession.
\nLegislation  such as we have now before us is calculated  to
\ndrain\tthe  vitality  from  the  rule\tof  law\t which\t our
\nConstitution  so  unmistakably proclaims, and it  is  to  be
\nhoped  that the democratic process in this country will\t not
\nfunction along these lines.\n<\/p>\n
MUKHERJEA  J.-This  appeal, which has come before  us  on  a
\ncertificate granted by the High Court of
\n1135<\/span>
\nPatna under article 132 (1) of the Constitution, is directed
\nagainst a judgment of a Division Bench of that court,  dated
\n3rd  January, 1952, by which the learned Judges dismissed  a
\npetition  of  the  appellants  under  article  226  of\t the
\nConstitution.  The prayer in the petition was for a writ  in
\nthe nature of mandamus, directing the opposite party, not to
\ntake   any  action,  under  an\tAct  passed  by\t the   Bihar
\nLegislative  Assembly in 1950 and known as The\tSathi  Lands
\n(Restoration)\tAct  which  was\t challenged  as\t  void\t and
\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
    To\tappreciate  the points in  controversy\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t to the proceeding, it may be necessary\t to  narrate
\nthe  material  facts  briefly.\t Maharani  Janki  Koer,\t the
\nrespondent No. 2 in the appeal, is the present\tproprietress
\nof an extensive Estate in Bihar known by the name of Bettiah
\nRaj, which is held and managed on her behalf by the Court of
\nWards,\tBihar, constituted under Bengal Act IX of 1879.\t  On
\n19th  July, 1946, the appellants, who are two  brothers\t and
\nare distantly related to the Maharani, made a representation
\nto  the\t Government  of Bihar through  the  Manager  of\t the
\nEstate,\t praying  for settlement in raiyati  right,  of\t 200
\nbighas\tof  land preferably in Sathi farm  or  Materia\tfarm
\nalong with a certain quantity of waste lands.  On 20th July,
\n1946, the then Manager of the Wards Estate wrote a letter to
\nthe Collector of Champaran recommending that the  applicants
\nmight  be  given  settlement of the  lands  as\tprayed\tfor,
\nwithout payment of any selami.\tThe Collector, however,\t did
\nnot. agree to this proposal, nor did the Commissioner of the
\nTirhut\t Division,   and  the  matter  then  came   up\t for
\nconsideration before the Board of Revenue which\t recommended
\nthat  settlement might be made with the applicants  provided
\nthey  were agreeable to pay selami at half the usual  rates.
\nOn  14th  October, 1946, the recommendation of\tthe  Revenue
\nBoard was accepted by the Provincial Government and six days
\nlater  the  Court of Wards accepted a cheque for  Rs.  5,000
\nfrom one of the lessees, towards payment of the selami money
\nand  rent for the year 1354 F.S. On the 2nd November,  1946,
\npossession
\n1136<\/span>
\nof the lands was given to the appellants and on the 18th  of
\nNovember  following,  the  Manager of  the  Court  of  Wards
\nrecorded a formal order fixing the selami of the land at Rs.
\n3,988 annas odd and rent at Rs. 797 annas odd per year.\t  On
\nthe  same day, a Hisab Bandobasti form, which is  the  usual
\nform  employed\tin the Estate for raiyati  settlements,\t was
\nsigned by the Circle Officer on behalf of the Court of Wards
\nand  by\t one  of  the lessees for himself  as  well  as\t the
\nconstituted  attorney  of  the other  lessees.\t It  is\t not
\ndisputed  that\tthe lessees continued to possess  the  lands
\nsince then on payment of the stipulated rent.
\n   On  the  3rd June, 1950, the\t Bihar\tLegislative  Assembly
\npassed\tan  Act known as The Sathi Lands  (Restoration)\t Act
\nwhich received the assent of the Governor on the 13th  June,
\n1950.  The object of the Act, as stated in the preamble,  is
\nto provide for restoration of certain lands belonging to the
\nBettiah\t Wards\tEstate which were settled  contrary  to\t the
\nprovisions of law in favour of certain individuals.  Section
\n2, which is the only material section in the Act, enacts  in
\nthe  first  sub-section that the settlement of\tSathi  lands
\n(described  in\tthe schedule to the Act) on  behalf  of\t the
\nBettiah\t Court of Wards Estate with the appellants,  as\t per
\norder of the Manager of the Estate dated the 18th  November,
\n1946,  is  declared  null  and void  and  no  party  to\t the
\nsettlement ,or his successor-in-interest shall be deemed  to
\nhave  acquired\tany right or incur any liability  under\t the
\nsame.\tThe second sub-section embodies a direction  to\t the
\neffect that the said lessees and their successor-in-interest
\nshall  quit  possession of the lands from the  date  of\t the
\ncommencement  of  the  Act and if they fail to\tdo  so,\t the
\nCollector  of  Champaran shall eject them  and\trestore\t the
\nlands  to the possession of the Bettiah Estate.\t  The  third
\nand  the last sub -section provides that the  Bettiah  Wards
\nEstate\tshall on restoration to it of the lands pay  to\t the
\nlessees\t the selami money paid by them and also such  amount
\nas  might have been spent by them in making improvements  on
\nthe lands prior to the commencement of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
1137<\/span><\/p>\n
In substance, therefore, the Act declared the lease  granted
\nby  the Bettiah Wards Estate to the appellants on  the\t18th
\nNovember, 1946, to be illegal and inoperative and prescribed
\nthe mode in which this declaration was to be given effect to
\nand the lessees evicted from the lands.\n<\/p>\n
On the 28th August, 1950, the appellants filed the petition,
\nout  of which this appeal arises, under article 226  of\t the
\nConstitution  in  the High Court of Patna,  challenging\t the
\nvalidity of The Sathi Lands Act and praying for a writ\tupon
\nthe respondents restraining them from taking any steps under
\nthe said Act, or from interfering with the possession of the
\nappellants  in respect of the lands comprised in the  lease.
\nIt  was\t asserted  by the petitioners that  in\tpassing\t the
\nimpugned legislation the Bihar Legislature actually  usurped
\nthe  power of the judiciary and the enactment was not a\t law
\nat  all\t in the proper sense of the expression.\t  The  other
\nmaterial  contentions raised were that the  legislation\t was
\nvoid  as  it conflicted with the fundamental rights  of\t the
\npetitioners  guaranteed under articles 14, 19(1) (f) and  31
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The   respondents   opposite  parties\tin   resisting\t the
\npetitioners’  prayer  stated inter alia\t in  their  counter-
\naffidavit that the settlement of the lands in question\twith
\nthe  appellants\t by  the Court of Wards,  was  not  for\t the
\nbenefit of the estate or advantage of the ward and that\t the
\ntransaction  was  entered into by the Wards  Estate  without
\nproperly  applying their mind to it.  It was stated  further
\nthat after the settlement was made, there was a good deal of
\nagitation among the tenants in the locality which led to the
\ninstitution  of\t certain  criminal  proceedings.   In  these
\ncircumstances,\tthe matter was brought to the notice of\t the
\nWorking\t Committee of the Indian National Congress  and\t the
\nWorking\t Committee  was of opinion that\t the  settlement  of
\nthese  lands  was  against public  interest.   The  lessees,
\ntherefore,  were  asked\t to vacate the lands  and  on  their
\nrefusal the legislation in question was passed.
\nThe  petition  was heard by a Division Bench  consisting  of
\nRamaswami and Sarjoo Pershad JJ.  Ramaswami J.\n<\/p>\n
1138<\/span><\/p>\n
decided\t all  the points raised by the\tpetitioners  against
\nthem and held that the Act was neither ultra vires the Bihar
\nLegislature  nor  was  void  under  article  13(1)  of\t the
\nConstitution.  The learned Judge was further of opinion that
\nit  was\t not a fit case for interference by the\t High  Court
\nunder  article\t226 of the Constitution. The  other  learned
\nJudge\texpressed  considerable\t doubts\t as  to\t whether   a
\nlegislation of this type, which in form and substance was  a
\ndecree\tof a court of law, was within the competence of\t the
\nlegislature  and warranted by the Constitution.\t He  agreed,
\nhowever,  with his learned colleague that the case  was\t not
\nsuch  as  to justify an interference of the  High  Court  in
\nexercise  of its discretionary powers under article  226  of
\nthe Constitution.  The remedy of the petitioners might\tlie,
\naccording  to  him, in a regularly  constituted\t suit.\t The
\nresult,\t therefore,  was that the appellants’  petition\t was
\ndismissed and it is the propriety of this judgment that\t has
\nbeen assailed before us in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
  Mr. P. R. Das, who appeared in support of the appeal,\t put
\nforward\t at the forefront of his arguments,  the  contention
\nraised\ton behalf of his client in the court below that\t the
\nimpugned legislation was void by reason of its violating the
\nfundamental rights of the appellants under article 14 of the
\nConstitution.\tThe point appeared to us to be of  substance
\nand after hearing the learned Attorney-General on this point
\nwe  were satisfied that the contention of Mr. Das was  well-
\nfounded\t and entitled to prevail, irrespective of any  other
\nground that might be raised in this appeal.
\nThere  have been a number of decisions by this\tcourt  where
\nthe question regarding the nature and scope of the guarantee
\nimplied\t in the equal protection clause of the\tConstitution
\ncame up for consideration and the general principles can  be
\ntaken to be fairly well settled. What this clause aims at is
\nto  strike  down  hostile discrimination  or  oppression  or
\ninequality.   As  the  guarantee  applies  to  all   persons
\nsimilarly situated, it is certainly open to the\t legislature
\nto  classify  persons  and  things  to\tachieve\t  particular
\nlegislative objects;\n<\/p>\n
1139<\/span><\/p>\n
but such selection or differentiation must not be  arbitrary
\nand should rest upon a rational basis, having regard to\t the
\nobject\twhich  the legislature has in view.   It  cannot  be
\ndisputed  that\tthe  legislation in  the  present  case\t has
\nsingled\t out  two individuals and one  solitary\t transaction
\nentered into between them and another private party, namely,
\nthe Bettiah Wards Estate and has declared the transaction to
\nbe  a  nullity\ton the ground that it  is  contrary  to\t the
\nprovisions  of law, although there has been no\tadjudication
\non this point by any judicial tribunal.\t It is not necessary
\nfor  our present purpose to embark upon a discussion  as  to
\nhow  far  the  doctrine of ‘separation of  powers  has\tbeen
\nrecognised  in our Constitution and whether the\t legislature
\ncan  arrogate  to  itself the powers of\t the  judiciary\t and
\nproceed to decide disputes between private parties by making
\na declaration of the rights of one against the other.  It is
\nalso  unnecessary  to attempt to specify the  limits  within
\nwhich  any  legislation,  dealing  with\t private-rights,  is
\npossible  within  the purview of our Constitution.   On\t one
\npoint  our Constitution is clear and explicit, namely,\tthat
\nno law is valid which takes away or abridges the fundamental
\nrights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.  There
\ncan  be no question, therefore, that if the  legislation  in
\nthe present case comes within the mischief of article 14  of
\nthe  Constitution, it has got to be declared invalid.\tThis
\nleads  us  to  the  question  as  to  whether  the  impugned
\nenactment is, in fact, discriminatory and if So, whether the
\ndiscrimination made by it can be justified on any  principle
\nof reasonable classification ?\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants,  it is not disputed, are only\ttwo  amongst
\nnumerous leaseholders who hold lands in raiyati right  under
\nthe  Bettiah Wards Estate.  It cannot also be disputed\tthat
\nthe  lands were settled with them on the  recommendation  of
\nthe  Board  of\tRevenue\t after\tdue  consideration  of\t the
\nrespective views put forward by the Manager of the Estate on
\nthe   one  hand\t and  the  Collector  and   the\t  Divisional
\nCommissioner  on the other.  The appellants  are  admittedly
\npaying rents which are normally assessed on lands of similar
\n1140<\/span>
\ndescription  in the locality.  The  learned  AttorneyGeneral
\nreferred in this connection to the provisions of section  18
\nof  the\t Court\tof Wards Act and argued that  the  lease  in
\ndispute\t was  granted  in  contravention  of  that  section.
\nSection 18 of the Court of Wards Act provides as follows:
\n“The Court may sanction the giving of leases or farms of any
\nproperty  under its charge … and may direct the  doing  of
\nall  such  other  acts as it may judge to be  most  for\t the
\nbenefit of the property and the advantage of the Ward”.\n<\/p>\n
     Apparently\t it makes the Court of Wards the sole  judge
\nof the benefit to the estate or advantage of the ward.\t But
\nit  is said that the Court of Wards did not apply  its\tmind
\nproperly  to  this  matter  when it  granted  lease  to\t the
\nappellants  at\thalf the usual rate of\tselami.\t  The  Wards
\nEstate thus suffered loss to the extent of nearly Rs.  4,000
\nwhich could legitimately have been recovered from any  other
\nlessee.\t  This\tcontention  does not impress  us  much;\t the
\nutmost\tthat  can be said is that this could have  been\t put
\nforward,  for what it is worth and with what result,  nobody
\ncan say, as a ground for setting aside the lease in a  court
\nof law.\t But that is not the question which is relevant\t for
\nour  present  purpose  at all; we were not  called  upon  to
\ndecide\twhether\t or  not  the lease  was  a  proper  one  or
\nbeneficial to the estate.  The question for our decision is,
\nwhether\t the statute contains discriminatory  provisions  so
\nfar as the appellants are concerned and if so, whether these
\ndiscriminations\t could\tbe  reasonably\tjustified  ?  It  is
\nclearly\t stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit made by\t the
\nappellants  in\tsupport\t of their petition  that  there\t are
\nnumerous other persons to whom leases on similar terms\twere
\ngranted\t by the Bettiah Wards Estate.  Clauses (b), (c)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(d) of paragraph 9 of the affidavit stand thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “(b) In this long course of management by tile Court  of
\nWards, leases or settlement of lands used to be made without
\nany selami on proper rent.  This state of affairs  continued
\ndown to recent times during
\n1141<\/span>
\nwhich  period  thousands  of bighas  were  so  settled\twith
\nnumerous persons;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  in 1945 the authorities decided to make settlements  on
\nlarge scale with war returned soldiers on a selami equal  to
\n5  times  the average rent prevailing in  the  locality\t for
\nsimilar lands;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  in\t 1946,\t1947,  1948  and  1949\ta  good\t number\t  of
\nsettlements covering about 2000 acres of lands were  settled
\non  the basis of IO years’ rental obtaining in the  locality
\nand in some cases for good reasons, at five years’ rental.”
\nIn paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit put in on behalf of
\nthe respondents, these statements are not denied.  In  fact,
\nthey  are  admitted and the only thing said is,\t that  these
\nleases were granted in due course of management.   Ramaswami
\nJ.  has dismissed this part of the case by simply  remarking
\nthat  no details of these settlements were furnished by\t the
\nappellants;  but no details were at all necessary  when\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the statements was not\t challenged  by\t the
\nrespondents.   It  will\t be interesting\t to  note  that\t the
\nrespondents  themselves\t in paragraph 10 of  their  counter-
\naffidavit mentioned the name of Shri Prajapati Mishra as one
\nof  the\t persons with whom similar settlement of  lands\t was
\nmade by the Bettiah Estate.  It is stated in that  paragraph
\nthat  the  cases of the appellants as well as  of  Prajapati
\nMishra\twere brought to the notice of the Working  Committee
\nof  the Indian National Congress and the Committee  came  to
\nthe  conclusion that both the settlements were\tcontrary  to
\nthe provisions of law.\tThereupon a request was made to both
\nthese sets of lessees to restore their lands to the  Estate,
\nbut  whereas  Prajapati\t Mishra returned his  lands  to\t the
\nBettiah\t Estate, the appellants refused to do so.  In  reply
\nto this statement, the appellants stated in their  rejoinder
\nthat the said Prajapati Mishra did not vacate the land,% but
\ncreated\t a  trust  in  respect of the  same,  he  being\t the
\nchairman  of the board Of trustees and the lands were  still
\nin  possession of the board of trustees.  Strangely,  as  it
\nseems, the State of Bihar raked up this matter again in a
\n148<\/span>
\n1142<\/span>
\nfurther\t affidavit  where  it was  admitted  that  the\tsaid
\nPrajapati  Mishra did execute a trust and that the  trustees
\ntook  possession of the property.  It was  stated,  however,
\nthat  Prajapati\t Mishra, who was one of\t the  trustees,\t did
\nactually  surrender  the lands in two installments  but\t the
\nother  trustees\t did not, and hence legal advice  was  being
\ntaken to find out ways and means of recovering the  property
\nfrom  them.  The whole thing smacks of disingenuousness\t and
\nthe State of Bihar, it seems, was not well advised in  rely-
\ning  upon  facts like these in their attempt  to  repel\t the
\nappellants’  attack  on\t the legislation on  the  ground  of
\ndiscrimination.\n<\/p>\n
   Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the  appellants
\nwere  not the only lessees under the Bettiah Estate who\t got
\nsettlement  of lands at a selami of five years’ rental.\t  On
\nthe  sworn  statements\tof the\tappellants,  which  are\t not
\nchallenged  by\tthe other side, it appears  that  there\t are
\nnumerous   persons  occupying  the  same  position  as\t the
\nappellants,   who   however   were   not   subjected\t  to
\nthis\t      expropriatory  legislation.  But the  vice  in
\nthis  legislation  goes much deeper than this.\t It  is\t not
\nmerely\ta  question of treating the  appellants\t differently
\nfrom  the  other lessees under the Wards Estate,  with\twhom
\nsettlements  of land have been made on similar or  identical
\nterms.\tIf a lease has been given by a Court of Wards, which
\nis  not\t for the benefit of the estate or advantage  of\t the
\nward,  it  is for a court of ,law to decide  whether  it  is
\nwarranted  by the terms of the Court of Wards Act.   If\t the
\nlessor proceeds to cancel the lease, the lessee has a  legal
\nright  to  defend his claim and satisfy the court  that\t the
\nlease  is  not in contravention of law.\t If,  on  the  other
\nhand, the lessee is actually dispossessed, he has a right to
\nsue  in court for recovery of possession of the property  on
\nestablishing  that  he has been illegally turned  out.\t The
\ndispute here, is a legal dispute pure and simple between two
\nprivate parties.  What the Legislature has done is to single
\nout  these  two individuals and deny them  the\tright  which
\nevery  Indian  citizen possesses to have  his  rights  adju-
\ndicated upon by a judicial tribunal in accordance with
\n1143<\/span>
\nthe law which applies to his case.  The meanest of  citizens
\nhas  a right of access to a court of law for the redress  of
\nhis  just  grievances  and  it is of  this  right  that\t the
\nappellants have been deprived by this Act.  It is impossible
\nto  conceive of a worse form of discrimination than the\t one
\nwhich  differentiates a particular individual from  all\t his
\nfellow\tsubjects and visits him with a disability  which  is
\nnot  imposed  upon anybody else and against which  even\t the
\nright  of  complaint is taken away.  The  learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral,  who  placed his case with his usual  fairness\t and
\nability,   could   not\tput  forward   any   convincing\t  or
\nsatisfactory  reason  upon which this legislation  could  be
\njustified.  It is true that the presumption is in favour  of
\nthe constitutionality of a legislative enactment and it\t has
\nto be presumed that a Legislature understands and  correctly
\nappreciates  the needs of its own people.  But when  on\t the
\nface of a statute there is no classification at all, and  no
\nattempt has been made to select any individual or group with
\nreference to any differentiating attribute peculiar to\tthat
\nindividual  or\tgroup  and not\tpossessed  by  others,\tthis
\npresumption is of little or no assistance. to the State.  We
\nmay  repeat with profit what was said by Mr. Justice  Brewer
\nin  Gulf Colorado etc.\tCo. v. Ellis(1) that “to  carry\t the
\npresumption to the extent of holding that there must be some
\nundisclosed  and  unknown  reason  for\tsubjecting  certain”
\nindividuals  or corporations to hostile\t and  discriminatory
\nlegislation  is\t to  make  the\tprotection  clauses  of\t the
\nFourteenth Amendment a mere rope of sand”.  In our  opinion,
\nthe  present  case  comes  directly  within  the   principle
\nenunciated  by this court in Ameerunnissa, Begum v.  Mahboob
\nBegum<\/a>(2 ).\n<\/p>\n
The  result  is that we allow the appeal and set  aside\t the
\njudgment  of  the  High\t Court.\t A writ\t in  the  nature  of
\nmandamus  shall issue directing the respondents not to\ttake
\nany steps in pursuance of The Sathi Lands (Restoration)\t Act
\nof  1950  or  to  interfere  with  the\tpossession  of\t the
\nappellants in respect to the lands
\n(1) 165 U-S. 150.\t(2) [1953] S.C.R- 404.\n<\/p>\n
1144<\/span><\/p>\n
comprised  in  the  lease  referred to\tin  that  Act.\t The
\nappellants will have their costs in both courts.\n<\/p>\n
     VIVIAN  BOSE J.-I am in entire agreement with  my\tLord
\nthe Chief Justice and with my learned brother Mukherjea.\n<\/p>\n
     GHULAM HASAN J.-I agree with my Lord the Chief  Justice
\nand with my brother Mukherjea.\n<\/p>\n
     BHAGWATI  J.-I  entirely agree with the  judgment\tjust
\ndelivered  by  my  Lord the Chief  Justice  and\t my  brother
\nMukherjea and there is nothing which I can usefully add.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellants: I. N. Shroff.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 215, 1953 SCR 1129 Author: M P Sastri Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: RAM PRASAD NARAYAN SAHI AND ANOTHER Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Prasad Narayan Sahi And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1953-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-12T06:43:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T06:43:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\"},\"wordCount\":4937,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\",\"name\":\"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T06:43:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-12T06:43:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953","datePublished":"1953-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T06:43:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953"},"wordCount":4937,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953","name":"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T06:43:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prasad-narayan-sahi-and-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-on-20-february-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And … vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}