Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4124 of 1984
PETITIONER:
LABANYA BALA DEVI AND ORS.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR PATNA SECRETARIAT, PATNA AND ORS,
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/09/1994
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY & N. VENKATACHALA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1994 SUPPL. (3) SCR 210
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
The appeal by Special leave arises for the appellate decree No. 76 Of 1974
dated March 18, 1982 of the Division Bench of the High Court at Patna. The
appellants/plaintiffs laid the suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judges
in Title Suit No. 23 of 1970 for a declaration that the appellant has a
Raiyati right over plot No. 1972 & 1973 i.e., tank and tankail situated in
village Bihulia in Khata No. 61 described in Schedule B of the Plaint and
for confirmation of possession over the same. Though the trial court by
decree dated February 21, 1972 decreed the suit holding that the appellant
has the Raiyati right over the plot described in Schedule B. property and
for his possession on appeal the Addl. District Judge Dhanbad, By Judgment
and decree held that the Scheduled ’B’ land stood vested in the State under
Sec. 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30, 1950 (for short the ’Act)
accordingly dismissed the suit and in the second appeal it was confirmed by
the High Court.
It is contended for the appellant that in 1943 the appellant had a
settlement from the erstwhile jamindar of the plot described in Schedule B
land which was used for agricultural purposes and that, therefore, it is
the raiyati land and the trial court rightly granted the decree. The High
Court and the Distt. Court had not properly considered the purpose of the
settlement made to the appellant and accordingly dismissed the suit of the
appellant. We find no force in the contention, under Sec.3 (1) of the Act
the State Government has been vested with the power to declare and get a
notification published in the State Gazette that the estates or tenures of
a proprietor or tenure holder specified in the notification, have ceased to
and become vested in the State. On and form the date of the notification so
published the consequences have been specified in Sec. 4 of the Act. It
provides that :
"Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other land for the time being
in force or any contract _______ on the publication of the notification
under Sub-s. (1) of Sec. 3_________the following consequences shall ensure
and shall be deemed always to have ensured, namely : -
(a) Such estate or tenure including the interest of the proprietor or
tenure-holder in any building or part of building comprised in such estate
or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of
rent of such a State or tenure and his interests in trees, forests,
fisheries, Jalkars, hats, bazars (mela) and ferries and all other sairati
interests, as also his interest in all sab-soil including any rights in
mines and minerals, whether been worked on not, inclusive of such rights of
a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure (other
then the interests of raiyats or under raiyats) shall, with effect from the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances
and such proprietor tenure- holders shall cease to have any interests in
such estate or other the interest expressly saved by or under the
provisions of this Act".
By operation of Sec. 4 such estate or tenures including the interest of the
proprietor or tenure holder in such estate or tenure and his interest in
trees, forests, Fisheries, Jalkars, Hats Bazars (mela) and ferries and all
other sairati interests as also his interests in all sub-soil including any
rights in mines and minerals etc., other than the interest of a raiyats or
under raiyats shall w.e.f, the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the free
from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure holder shall ceases to
have any interests in such estate or other then the interests expressly
saved by or under the provisions of the Act. Sec. 6(l)(b) is one of the
savings which postulates that "On and from the date of vesting all lands
used for agricultural or horticultural purposes which were in khas
possession of an intermediary on the date of such vesting, including in
clause (b) that lands used for agricultural ________and held in the direct
possession of a temporary lesses of an estate or tenure and cultivated by
himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or
with hired stock_______ shall subject to the provisions of Sects. 7-A and
7-B be deemed to be settled by the State with such intermediary and he
shall be entitled to retain possession thereof and hold them as a raiyats
under the State having occupancy rights in respect of such lands subject to
the payment of such fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the
Collector in the prescribed manner thereby. The saving by Sec. 6(l)(b) is
only of the lands actually used for agricultural purposes in a State or a
tenure of a leassee or a temporary lessee and directly in his possession
and cultivated by himself with his own stock by his own servants or by
hired labour or with hired stock that the land stands excluded and raiyati
rights has been confirmed statutorily subject to the terms contained there
in. The tank is said to be settled by the land holder in favour of the
appellant thereby the tank was no saved. Thus the tank stands vested in the
state absolutely free from all encumbrances and that, therefore, the
contract even, if any, was nullified by non-obstante clause b clause 4.
Thereby the pre-existing rights, if any, have been extinguished and stood
divested. The appellant cannot claim any rights on the basis of the said
agreement which formed basis for declaration sought for. Under those
circumstances the trial court is clearly in error in granting the
declaration. The District court rightly reversed the decree, the High Court
though had not gone into this question, for the reasons we set out, we
confirm the decree and judgment of the High Court but in the circumstances
parties are directed to bear their own costs.