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.