Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Banerji and Choudhary JJ.
Umesh Jha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 53 of 1955 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 21, 1956
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 4(H) - INTERPRETATION - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - ANNULMENT OF TRANSFERS - DISPUTED DATES - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES - LEGISLATIVE INTENT - CASUS OMISSUS - FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had taken settlement of two plots of land from the landlords in 1946, challenged the order of the Additional Collector annulling the settlement under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the grounds that the settlement was made prior to January 1, 1946, and that the Collector had no jurisdiction to annul it.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to annul the settlement under Section 4(h) of the Act, as the section only empowered the Collector to annul transfers made after January 1, 1946, and did not confer jurisdiction to determine the date of the transfer if it was disputed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to annul the settlement under Section 4(h) of the Act, given that the settlement was prima facie made before January 1, 1946? 2. Whether the Collector could raise a controversy himself, be adjudge in his own cause, decide it in his own favor, and then assume jurisdiction to annul the transfer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 4(h) of the Act to mean that the Collector could only annul transfers that were uncontroversially made after January 1, 1946, and not transfers whose dates were disputed. 2. The Court held that it would be against the fundamental principle of law that one should be a judge in his own cause, and that the Collector could not be given the power to raise a controversy himself, adjudge in his own cause, decide it in his own favor, and then assume jurisdiction to annul the transfer.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Additional Collector annulling the settlement and issued a writ of certiorari against the opposite parties to that effect.
Choudhary, J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts giving rise to the application, as alleged by the petitioner put briefly, are these:
3. Plot Nos. 383 and 1033 lying in village Lakshmipur, alias Tarauni, P. S. Bahera in the district of Darbhanga, were Gairmazrua Khas lands of the landlords, Sri Kaladharisingh and Sri Krishnanandsingh. These two plots are tanks. The petitioner took settlement of these plots from the aforesaid landlords in the year 1350 Fasli. The, settlement was made by granting receipts to the petitioner by the aforesaid landlords. The petitioner accordingly paid rent to them so long as the estate remained in their possession. Later on, their estates vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and thereafter the petitioner paid rent to the State of Bihar in respect of the aforesaid plots in the year 1361 Fasli. The Additional Collector of Darbhanga (opposite party 2) purporting to act under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act passed an order annulling the aforesaid settlement and called upon the petitioner to give up possession of the plots in question by a certain date. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Additional Collector that the settlement in question was made prior to January, 1946 and it could not, therefore, be annulled under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act. This contention was overruled by him as he came to a finding that the settlement was actually made after 1-1-1946. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order.
4. In support of the application Mr. B. C. De has raised two contentions. They are : (1) that tbe State of Bihar (opposite party 1) having accepted rent from the petitioner in the year 1361 Fasli and granted receipt for the same, as stated above, was not entitled to challenge the genuineness and validity of the settlement and (2) that the settlement in question having apparently been made before January, 1946, the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to annul the same under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act and it was beyond his jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question that the said settlement was actually made after January, 1946.
5. The first contention has no substance. It is the admitted case of the parties that the rent that was accepted by the State of Bihar from the petitioner for the year 1361 Fasli was accepted without prejudice and this fact was noted on the receipt itself. That being so, there is no force in the argument that the State of Bihar was estopped from challenging the genuineness and validity of the settlement under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act. The words "without prejudice" import into any transaction that the parties have agreed that as be between themselves the receipt of money by one and its payment by the other shall not by themselves have any legal effect on the rights of the parties, but they shall be open to settlement by legal controversy as if the money had not been paid. (See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, West Publishing Company, Volume 45, page 439). This contention of the petitioner has, therefore, to be rejected as being without any merit.
6. The second contention is the main contention in the case and its decision is by no means free from difficulty. Sec. 4 (h) of the Act, so far as is relevant for the purpose of the present case, runs as follows:
"The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure made at any time after the first day of January, 1946, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder, the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard and with the previous san
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
