Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA,JJ.
State of Bihar, Appellant
Versus
Bishnu Chand Lal Chaudhary and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.2296 of 1970, D/-8-1-1985.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 133(1)(a), 31(6),(2) - Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 - Section 299(2), 3, 5, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 22, 30, 31, 13(1) - Government of India Act, 1935 - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 – Section 4(22) - Hindu Joint Family - Property - Claim for Damages - Appeal arises out of an action in tort for damages for trespass and unauthorised interference by defendants with proprietary interest of plaintiff - Defendants were State and J. P. Mukherjee, an officer in service of Government - Plaintiff, was karta of a Hindu joint family which owned extensive properties collectively known as "Raj Nazarganj"- Said properties were spread over District and some other districts as also in State - Plaintiff was recorded proprietor of several tauzis situated in Districts of Purnea and Monghyr and also proprietor of several tenures and patnis within said Districts - Plaintiff was liable to pay about Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of taxes, cesses etc. annually - Whether it is done negligently or not – Held, Government issued a notification accordingly within about four months - It is because plaintiff did not hand over even consolidated collection statements, separate collection statements could not be got prepared by defendant No. 2 and even according to plaintiff himself it would have taken six months to prepare separate collection statements on basis of consolidated statements - It is not shown that either State Government or any of its officers knew beforehand that plaintiff had maintained a consolidated statement of accounts and that deliberately in order to cause loss to plaintiff, first notification had been issued in respect of a portion of Tauzis - These facts constituted a good defence under S. 31 of Act against any claim based on any alleged neglect or omission since there was no proof of any wilful default or gross negligence on part of defendants - There was also no proof of deliberate abuse of statutory power nor of usurpation of a power which authorities knew that they did not possess - In circumstances claim for damages on all counts should fail except with regard to claim for Rs. 8,000/- which had been incurred as cost of management in excess of what was authorised by law – Court set aside judgment and decree passed by trial Court and judgment and decree dated passed by Division Bench of the High Court and pass a decree against defendant No. 1, State directing it to pay to plaintiffs legal representatives a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from date of suit till date of payment - Appeal allowed partly.
Judgment
VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- This appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution arises out of an action in tort for damages for trespass and unauthorised interference by the defendants with the proprietary interest of the plaintiff. The defendants were the State of Bihar and J. P. Mukherjee, an officer in the service of the Bihar Government.
2. The plaintiff, Prithwi Chand Lall Choudhary was the karta of a Hindu joint family which owned extensive properties collectively known as the "Raj Nazarganj". The said properties were spread over the District of Purnea and some other districts in the State of Bihar as also in the State of West Bengal. The plaintiff was the recorded proprietor of several tauzis situated in the Districts of Purnea and Monghyr and also the proprietor of several tenures and patnis within the said Districts. The plaintiff was liable to pay about Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of taxes, cesses etc. annually.
3. In the year 1949, the Bihar Legislature passed a law known as the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XXI of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for the management of estates and tenures in the Province of Bihar. It received the assent of the Governor-General on September 29, 1949 and was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary of October 17, 1949. On the coming into force of the Constitution on January 26, 1950, the Act was certified by the President in exercise of his powers conferred by Article 31(6) of the Constitution. The said certificate which was published in Notification No, 43/3/50-Judicial dated March 11, 1950 read as follows :
"That the said Act shall not be called in question in any Court on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of clause (2) of Article 31, or has contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935."
4. Clauses (2) and (6) of Article 31 which are relevant for these cases as they stood at the commencement of the Constitution read as follows :-
"31. (1).......................
(2) No property, moveable or immoveable, including any interest in, or in any company owning, any commercial or industrial undertaking, shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession or such acquisition, unless the law provides for compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of the compensation, or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given.
... ... ... ... ... ...
(6) Any law of the State enacted not more than eighteen months before the commencement of this Constitution may within three months from such commencement be submitted to the President for his certification, and thereupon. if the President by public notification so certifies, it shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of clause (2) of this article or has contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935."
5. A perusal of the provisions of the Act shows that it was intended to bring about a reform in the land distribution system of Bihar for the general benefit of the community. The taking over of the management and control over land was found to be necessary as a preliminary step towards the implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Act was similar in nature to the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Act XXX of 1950), the constitutional validity of which was considered by this Court in State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh, 1952 SCR 889. The object of the Act was to bring the Government face to face with the cultivators of the soil in order to facilitate the further reform of abolition of zamindari. It was also intended to make provision for better irrigation facilities and to prevent realisation of excessive rent or revenue from the cultivators. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
