SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 978

2010 (6) Supreme 809
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Pitambar Singh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8865 of 2010
(Arising out of Slp (C) No. 6950 of 2007)
Decided on : 8-10-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Father and major son both alive cannot be treated as one family for the purposes of the Ceiling Act.

Headnote:(a) Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 – Section 11(1) – Unless the matter was not finally decided in between the State and the land holders after inviting and disposing of objections, there could be no final draft statement much less publication thereof. (Para 6)

        (b) Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 – Section 11(1) – Order dated 15.12.1977 not incorporated in draft statement due to inaction of the State Government and not due to any fault of the appellant – Appellant cannot be made to suffer for inaction of the State – It would be patently unjust to give a premium to the State Government on its inaction. (Para 6)

        (c) Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 – Section 11(1) – Father and major son both alive cannot be treated as one family for the purposes of the Act. (Para 7)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The Sub-Divisional Officer in Ceiling Case No. 15 of 1973, rejected the objection filed under Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. This order was confirmed by the District Collector and was further confirmed in the revision by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.

        2. The Writ Petition thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

        The final draft statement ought to have incorporated the order dated 15.12.1977.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. A judgment dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and confirming the order of the Single Judge has fallen for consideration in this appeal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition. By order dated 31.12.1983 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in Ceiling Case No. 15 of 1973, the objection filed under Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’) was rejected. This order was confirmed by the District Collector vide order dated 21.5.1984 and was further confirmed in the revision by Resolution dated 22.5.1986 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The appellants moved the High Court by way of a Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No.3824 of 1986, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA); however, in the LPA, all the aforementioned orders were confirmed.

3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by Shri Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to go into the facts of the case.

4. One Bhagwati Singh was the original land holder. His son was Pitambar Singh (appellant No. 1 herein) and Pitambar Singh has two sons, namely, Rabindra Kumar Singh (appellant No. 2 herein) and Jitendra Kumar Singh. Bhagwati Singh was alive on 9.9.1970, which is the relevant date under the Ceiling Act. Pitambar Singh (appellant No.1) and his wife and sons were living with Bhagwati Singh. They were members of a Mitakshara joint family and were having a total family holding of 33.95 acres of class-II land. The ceiling fixed by the Ceiling Act is 18 acres in respect of such land. The proceedings were started vide Ceiling Case No. 15 of 1973 against Pitambar Singh (appellant No. 1); since, by that time, Bhagwati Singh, the father, had died. Still Pitambar Singh (appellant No. 1) also had a major son, Ravindra Singh. A draft statement was made and published showing that Pitambar Singh (appellant No. 1) was entitled to retain only 18 acres of land and thus, the family was holding 15.95 acres of land as surplus land. On the service of the draft statement, Pitambar Singh (appellant No. 1) filed objections under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. It was pointed out that whatever may be the status on the relevant date under the Ceiling Act, when the proceedings were taken, Rabindra Kumar Singh (appellant No. 2) was major on 9.9.1970 also and as such, he also was entitled to his own share and he could not be held as a member of family of Pitambar SIngh. This objection was rejected by the order dated 31.10.1975. An appeal was preferred against this order, wherein it was decided that the appellants should be treated as two families. However, this order was recalled and the appeal filed before the appellate authority came to be dismissed by the order dated 30.6.1976. A revision was filed against this order, which stood allowed by the order dated 10.5.1977, whereby the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for the purpose of determining the age of Rabindra Kumar Singh (appellant No. 2 herein) as on 9.9.1970. After the remand, the appellate authority, by its order dated 15.12.1977, recorded a finding that Rabindra Kumar Singh (appellant No. 2 herein) was major on 9.9.1970 and accordingly, he was entitled to be treated as a separate family from that of his father Pitambar Singh (appellant No. 1). It is very significant to note that this order was never challenged by the State by way of a revision and the said order attained the finality. However, a draft statement under Section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act was finally published and gazetted under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act, on the basis of the old orders no draft statement was published after passing of the order dated 15.12.1977, which ought to have been published noting the change made by the app






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top