1. Estate vesting under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Dispute over lease money — Validity of vesting notification regarding mandatory publication requirements. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I.; V. BHARGAVA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Giriwar Prasad Narain Singh, Appellant
Versus
Dukhu Lal Das (dead) by his legal representatives and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 911 of 1964.
D/- 20-9-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9; M/s. D. P. Singh and K. M. K. Nair, Advocates, for Respondent No 10.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, B.SEN, D.P.Singh, K.M.NAYAR, S.N.MUKHERJEE, Udaipratap Singh
B.R.L.Iyengar, B.SEN, D.P.Singh, K.M.NAYAR, S.N.MUKHERJEE, Udaipratap Singh
The requirement to publish a vesting notification in at least two issues of two newspapers is mandatory; failure to comply prevents the estate from vesting in the State, regardless of publication in the Official Gazette or the statutory definition of the "date of vesting."
Headnote:(A) Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 2(h), 3(1), 3(2), and 4(a) - Notification of vesting - Mandatory vs. Directory requirements - Publication in newspapers - Effect of non-compliance - The requirement under Section 3(2) that a notification declaring the vesting of an estate in the State shall be published in the Official Gazette and in at least two issues of two newspapers is mandatory and not merely directory (Paras 3, 4). The use of the expression "at least" indicates the legislature's intent that this requirement be fulfilled before a proprietor is divested of rights (Para 4).
(B) Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 2(h) - Definition of "date of vesting" - The definition of "date of vesting" as the date of publication in the Official Gazette is intended to provide certainty regarding the date from which vesting takes effect, but it does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of publication in newspapers (Para 5).
(C) Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Retrospective Amendment - An amendment omitting the requirement of newspaper publication that is not specifically made retrospective cannot validate previous notifications that failed to comply with the then-mandatory publication requirements (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
A notification was issued declaring that the estates of a proprietor had vested in the State. The notification was published in the Official Gazette but not in two issues of two newspapers as required by the Act. The proprietor continued in possession and granted a lease to a third party for the collection of bidi leaves. The State later issued a proclamation taking over the estates and demanded the lease money. The dispute arose over whether the estate vested in the State upon the Gazette publication or only upon the later takeover.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the notification failed to comply with the mandatory publication requirements of the Act. Consequently, the estate did not vest in the State on the date of the Gazette publication, and the proprietor remained the owner until the actual takeover. The lease granted by the proprietor was valid, and the lease money was rightly realized by him.
Issues: Whether the requirement to publish the vesting notification in at least two issues of two newspapers was mandatory or directory, and whether the definition of "date of vesting" in the Official Gazette was sufficient to effect vesting despite the absence of newspaper publication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the notification's far-reaching effect of depriving an owner of vested rights necessitated strict compliance with the publication requirements. The phrase "at least" signifies a mandatory minimum. The definition of "date of vesting" in the Official Gazette serves only to fix a specific date for the effect of vesting, provided the mandatory publication process is completed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether publication of the vesting notification in newspapers was mandatory or directory, and whether the definition of date of vesting dispensed with newspaper publication. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The requirement for publication in newspapers is mandatory due to the far-reaching effect of divesting proprietary rights; the date of vesting definition merely ensures chronological certainty. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Divestment of proprietary rights under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 requires strict compliance with mandatory publication requirements in both the Official Gazette and specified newspapers. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; decree against the proprietor vacated and lease money awarded to the proprietor as the estate had not vested in the State at the relevant time. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Is the requirement to publish the vesting notification in newspapers under Section 3(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 mandatory?
Yes. Because the notification deprives an owner of vested proprietary rights, the legislature emphasized the requirement by specifying a minimum of two issues of two newspapers, making it mandatory for the vesting to take effect. (Para 4 )
7. Does the definition of date of vesting in Section 2(h) make newspaper publication unnecessary for the vesting to occur?
No. The definition of date of vesting in the Official Gazette is intended to provide a certain date for the effect of vesting, but the actual vesting only occurs after the mandatory newspaper publications are completed. (Para 5 )
8. What is the effect of a retrospective amendment to the notice provisions on previously issued notifications?
A retrospective amendment to the deemed notice provisions does not validate previous notifications if the amendment omitting the mandatory publication requirements themselves was not made retrospective. (Para 6 , 8 )
Judgement
BHARGAVA, J.:- This appeal raises a question of interpretation of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (No. 30 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which came into force initially on 11th September, 1950. On 12th March, 1951, the Act was declared void by the High Court at Patna on the ground that its provisions violated Article 14 of the Constitution. On 18th June, 1951, the Constitution First Amendment Act came into force. Thereafter, on 6th November, 1951, a notification was issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act in respect of the property of defendant No. 1 (appellant in this appeal) declaring that the estates of defendant No. 1 had passed to and become vested in the State. The notification was published in the Official Gazette of Bihar on 14th November, 1951. It is disputed whether it was also published in any newspapers at that time. Defendant No. 1, however, continued in possession of the estates. On 12th April, 1952, defendant No. 1 granted a lease to the plaintiff (now represented by respondents 1 to 9 in this appeal) for three years for collection of Bidi leaves in land situated in the estate of defendant No. 1. It is common ground that collection of Bidi leaves starts from 1st May and ends about the 15th of June, so that, for the year 1952, the plaintiff was to collect Bidi leaves between 1-5-1952 and 15-6-1952. Under the terms of the lease, the plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 22,500 each year to defendant No. 1 and was, in addition, required to furnish a sum of Rs. 7, 500 as security. For the year 1952 the plaintiff did pay the sum of Rs. 30,000 to defendant No. 1. On 5th May, 1952, this Court held that the Act was valid and constitutional. On 12th June, 1952, the lease dated 12th April, 1952 was registered. On the very next day, on 13th June, l952, a Proclamation was issued by the State Government, defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 10 in this appeal), stating that the estates of defendant No. 1 had been taken over by the Government under the Act. On 21st November, 1952, defendant No. 2 gave a notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the lease granted to him by defendant No. 1 shouldn t be cancelled. On 18th April, 1953, the plaintiff was informed by defendant No. 2 that as an existing lessee he may continue in possession till final orders of the Government are passed. On 2nd May, 1953, another notice was given by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff that unless the plaintiff paid to defendant No. 2 the lease money for the previous year 1952, he will not get the lease for the year 1953. Thereupon, under protest, the plaintiff paid the lease money to defendant No. 2 for both the years 1952 and 1953. On 4th June, 1954, the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 20 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act") came into force. The effect of this amendment will be noticed hereafter. On 31st January, 1955, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a degree against either defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2 for the two sums of Rs. 7,500 which he had deposited as security, and Rs. 22,500 which he had been forced to pay to each of the two defendants. On 28th June, 1957, the trial Court decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 7,500 only against defendant No. 1 and for the sum of Rs. 22,500 against defendant No. 2. On 14th October, 1957 defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the High Court and on 13th June, 1958, cross-objections were Bled on behalf of defendant No. 1 as well as the plaintiff. The High Court decided the appeal on 1st November, l961 holding that defendant No. 1 had no rights under which he could grant the lease to the plaintiff and was, therefore liable to refund not only the sum of Rs. 7,500 furnished as security, but also the sum of Rs. 22,500 which he had reaused from the plaintiff as lease money for the year 1952. The decree of the trial Court against defendant No. 2 for Rs. 22,500 was set aside, as defendant No. 2 was held entitled to realise the lease money even for the year 195
