Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
Rebati Ranjan
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 344 of 1952 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 16, 1952
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT - NOTIFICATION - VESTING OF ESTATES - TRUST ESTATES - COMPENSATION - INTERIM PAYMENTS - JURISDICTION - DESCRIPTIVE MENTION OF PROPRIETOR'S NAME - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Secs. 3(1), 3(2), 4(f), 23(1), 24(3), 32(2), 33(1).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Trustees of Brojabala Trust Estate and Ramranjan Trust Estate, challenged the notification issued by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, vesting certain estates in the State. They contended that the notification was defective as it did not correctly mention the names of the trustees and that the State had no jurisdiction to acquire the estates. The State argued that the mention of the proprietor's name in the notification was merely descriptive and not a condition precedent to the vesting of the estate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the mention of the proprietor's name in the notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act was merely descriptive and not a condition precedent to the vesting of the estate. The identity of the estate was the only relevant matter to be investigated on the question whether the title of the estate had passed to and become vested in the Government. The Court further held that the State had jurisdiction to notify the properties belonging to a religious or charitable trust and that the Act had specified the principle and the manner in which compensation was to be determined and given with respect to properties of a religious or charitable endowment. The Court also held that the State Government was bound to make interim provision for the upkeep and maintenance of all the objects of the trust.
Issues: 1. Whether the mention of the proprietor's name in the notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act was a condition precedent to the vesting of the estate? 2. Whether the State had jurisdiction to notify the properties belonging to a religious or charitable trust? 3. Whether the Act had specified the principle and the manner in which compensation was to be determined and given with respect to properties of a religious or charitable endowment? 4. Whether the State Government was bound to make interim provision for the upkeep and maintenance of all the objects of the trust?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The mention of the proprietor's name in the notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act was merely descriptive and not a condition precedent to the vesting of the estate. The identity of the estate was the only relevant matter to be investigated on the question whether the title of the estate had passed to and become vested in the Government. 2. The State had jurisdiction to notify the properties belonging to a religious or charitable trust. 3. The Act had specified the principle and the manner in which compensation was to be determined and given with respect to properties of a religious or charitable endowment. 4. The State Government was bound to make interim provision for the upkeep and maintenance of all the objects of the trust.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and held that the notification issued by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, vesting certain estates in the State was valid.
Ramaswami, J.
1. In this case a rule has been granted calling upon the State of Bihar and the other respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued restraining them from taking possession of certain estates notified under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
2. The petitioners are Trustees of an estate called the Brojabala Trust Estate created by Maharani Padma Sundari Debi of Hetampur in the district of Birbhum, The trust deed was executed on the 14th Falgoon 1301 Bengal Sambat, corresponding to 27-2-1895. The petitioners along with pro forma respondents Sur-anjan Chakravarty, Pinaik Bhusan Deb Ray & Sachindra Mohan Roy are also Trustees of the Ramranjan Trust Estate created by the late Maharajah Ramranjan Chakravarty of Hetampur. The deed of trust was executed on 27th Sraban 1294 Bengal Sambat, corresponding to 11-8-1887. By the trust deed of the Brojabala Trust Estate, properties were vested in the Trustees for certain charitable and religious purposes. There was provision for the maintenance of a college at Hetampur, for the worship of the deity Sri Sri Gouranga Mahaprabhu installed in a public temple at Hetampur and for establishing a Sanskrit tole. The Ilamran-jan Trust deed similarly provided for the maintenance of a English High School at Hetampur, for the sebapuja of a deity Sri Sri Radha Ballav Jeo in a public temple at Hetampur, and for maintenance of a Charitable dispensary at Hetampur.
On 30-5-1952, the Government of Bihar notified that the estates described in the schedule attached to the petition which form the subject-matter of the two trusts were vested in the State under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioners that the notification was defective since the proper trustees were not mentioned with respect to touzi Nos. 554, 556, 609, 31/BBI, 175/12 and the tenures appertaining to touzi No. 551, On the contrary, the trustees actually mentioned-- Kumar Niranjan Chakravarty, Kumar Biswaranjan Chakravarty, Raja Satya Niranjan Chakravarty, Maharaj Kumar Mahimaranjan Chakravarty and Maharaj Kumar Kamala Niranjan Chakravarty --were all dead long past. As regards touzi No. 551 R appertaining to 9 annas 2 gandas 3 krants notified in Notification No. 77 LR/ZAN the names of all the trustees were not specified. With respect to touzi Nos. 175/12, 175/3, 177/6 and 177/7 it was alleged on behalf of the petitioners that they were touziz of Birbhum Collectorate in West Bengal and were not in the jurisdiction of the State of Bihar. It was also alleged that the Collector proclaimed by beat of drum that the residences belonging to the Trustees of Brojabala Trust in Jamtara and Dumka would be taken over by the State. The petitioners assert that the residences are not included within the touzi notified but they are properties held by the trustees as tenants under other touziz belonging to other proprietors.
3. In support of this rule Dr. Sengupta contended in the first place that the notifications issued by the Government of the State did not correctly mention the names of the trustees and the title to the estates notified could not, therefore, pass to or vest in the State under the provisions of Sec.3 (1), Bihar Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel pointed out that with respect to touziz 554, 556, 609, 31/BBI, 175/12 and tenures appertaining to touzi No. 551 the notification was made in the names of the trustees who were dead long ago. As regards touzi No. 551 R appertaining to 9 annas 2 gandas 3 krants share the names of the proprietors mentioned in the relevant column did not specify all the trustees. Learned counsel mentioned in particular that the name of Suranjan Chakravarty was not included. It was contended that the State Government had no jurisdiction to acquire the estates unless they correctly mentioned the names of the proprietors in the notification The argument is that it is a condition precedent to the vesting of title that the St
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
