Supreme Court Quashes Amendment to Bihar Land Reforms Act and Rule as Ultra Vires; State Legislature Competence Ousted by Parliamentary Occupation of Minor Minerals Field. Second Proviso to Section 10(2) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rule 20(2) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 Declared Invalid.

Constitutional challenge to the validity of the second proviso to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (as amended) and Rule 20(2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, which imposed enhanced dead rent, royalty, and surface rent on pre-existing mining leases.

The appellant sought a writ quashing the demand and declaring the impugned proviso and rule ultra vires and inapplicable to his 1955 lease.

The State of Bihar demanded enhanced payments contrary to the original lease terms, relying on the amended legislation and rules.

The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding the provisions valid. The aggrieved lessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether the second proviso to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was ultra vires the State Legislature due to lack of legislative competence under Entry 23 List II read with Entry 54 List I of the Constitution. Whether Rule 20(2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 was invalid for want of legislative support and could not affect pre-existing leases. Whether the impugned proviso fell under Entry 18 List II (land and land tenures) or Entry 23 List II. Whether the declaration under Section 2 of the 1957 Act resulted in 'control of the Union' as required by Entry 54 List I.

Appellant argued that after Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the field of minor minerals was entirely occupied, leaving no legislative competence with the State under Entry 23 List II; hence the second proviso to Section 10(2) was ultra vires. Appellant contended that Rule 20(2) lacked legislative support and could not alter the terms of a lease granted in 1955, as Section 15 of the 1957 Act only authorized prospective rule-making. Respondent State argued that the second proviso fell under Entry 18 List II (land and land tenures) and not Entry 23, as it related to abolition of intermediary interests. Respondent submitted that the 1957 Act did not result in 'control of the Union' as required by Entry 54, so the State's jurisdiction under Entry 23 remained intact. Respondent claimed that since Section 15 of the 1957 Act did not deal with modification of existing leases, the State was free to legislate in that uncovered area.

After Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and declared in Section 2 that it is expedient in the public interest that the regulation of mines and mineral development should be under the control of the Union to the extent provided in the Act, and by Section 15 empowered the State Government to make rules for regulating grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals, the entire field of legislation relating to minor minerals stood occupied, thereby removing legislative competence of the State under Entry 23 of List II. Consequently, the second proviso to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, being a law regulating mining leases of minor minerals, was ultra vires. Further, Rule 20(2) could not apply to leases granted before the commencement of the 1957 Act without specific legislative sanction, which was absent.

Entry 54 of the Union List speaks both of regulation of mines and mineral development and entry 23 is subject to entry 54. It is open to Parliament to declare that it is expedient in the public interest that the control should vest in Central Government. Once this declaration is made and the extent laid down the subject of the legislation to the extent laid down becomes an exclusive subject for legislation by Parliament. Any legislation by the State after such declaration and touching upon the field disclosed. in the field is extracted from the legislative competence of the State. It must accordingly be held that by the declaration in s. 2 and by the enactment of s. 15 the whole of the field relating to minor minerals came within the jurisdiction of Parliament and no scope was left for the enactment of the second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Land Reforms Act. The second proviso was therefore ultra vires. Rule 20(2) of the Bihar Minor Concession Rules, 1964 was ineffective for the purpose. It could not derive sustenance from the 2nd proviso to s. 10(2) of the Reforms Act as that proviso was not validly enacted. There was also no other legislative support since s. 15 of the Act of 1957 did not contemplate alteration of terms of leases already in existence before that Act was passed.

The appellant purchased a lease for quarrying minor minerals in 1963 from the original lessee who had obtained it in 1955. After the Bihar Land Reforms Act vested the landlords' rights in the State, the State confirmed the lease and accepted rent until 1965. In 1964, the Bihar Legislature added a second proviso to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and amended Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules to apply the rules to pre-existing leases. The State then demanded higher payments. The appellant filed writ petitions in the Patna High Court, which were dismissed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Entry 54 of List I, Entry 23 of List II
• Government of India Act, 1935: Entry 36 of List I, Entry 23 of List II
• Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957: Sections 2, 4 to 13, 14, 15, 16
• Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 10(1), Section 10(2), Second Proviso to Section 10(2)
• Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948:
• Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964: Rule 20