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.
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
referred to : Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.